Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 42

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

9 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

view  B. L.’s  speech.    She  viewed  a  copy  of  that  speech  (a
screenshot)  created  by  another  student.  Ante,  at  2.  But, 
the majority mentions none of this.  It simply, and uncriti-
cally, assumes that B. L.’s speech was off campus.  Because 
it  creates  a  test  untethered  from  history,  it  bypasses  this
relevant inquiry. 

* 

* 

* 
The Court  transparently takes a common-law approach
to today’s decision.  In effect, it states just one rule: Schools 
can regulate speech less often when that speech occurs off 
campus.  It  then  identifies  this  case  as  an  “example”  and
“leav[es]  for  future  cases”  the  job  of  developing  this  new 
common-law doctrine.  Ante, at 7–8.  But the Court’s foun-
dation is untethered from anything stable, and courts (and 
schools) will almost certainly be at a loss as to what exactly 
the Court’s opinion today means. 

Perhaps there are good constitutional reasons to depart
from the historical rule, and perhaps this Court and lower 
courts will identify and explain these reasons in the future. 
But because the Court does not do so today, and because it
reaches the wrong result under the appropriate historical 
test, I respectfully dissent.