Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2020 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

MAHANOY AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT v. B. L., A MINOR, 
BY AND THROUGH HER FATHER, LEVY, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

No. 20–255.  Argued April 28, 2021—Decided June 23, 2021 

Mahanoy Area High School student B. L. failed to make the school’s var-
sity cheerleading squad.  While visiting a local convenience store over 
the weekend, B. L. posted two images on Snapchat, a social media ap-
plication for smartphones that allows users to share temporary images 
with  selected  friends.    B. L.’s  posts  expressed  frustration  with  the 
school and the school’s cheerleading squad, and one contained vulgar 
language and gestures.  When school officials learned of the posts, they
suspended B. L. from the junior varsity cheerleading squad for the up-
coming year.  After unsuccessfully seeking to reverse that punishment, 
B. L. and her parents sought relief in federal court, arguing inter alia 
that punishing B. L. for her speech violated the First Amendment.  The 
District Court granted an injunction ordering the school to reinstate
B. L. to the cheerleading team.  Relying on Tinker v. Des Moines Inde-
pendent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, to grant B. L.’s subse-
quent  motion  for  summary  judgment,  the  District  Court  found  that 
B. L.’s punishment violated the First Amendment because her Snap-
chat  posts  had  not  caused  substantial  disruption  at  the  school.   The 
Third Circuit affirmed the judgment, but the panel majority reasoned
that Tinker did not apply because schools had no special license to reg-
ulate student speech occurring off campus.  

Held: While  public  schools  may  have  a  special  interest  in  regulating
some  off-campus  student  speech,  the  special  interests  offered  by  the 
school are not sufficient to overcome B. L.’s interest in free expression 
in this case.  Pp. 4–11.

(a) In  Tinker,  we  indicated  that  schools  have  a  special  interest  in
regulating on-campus student speech that “materially disrupts class-