Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 40

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

7 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

which Tinker chiefly relied concerned the rights of parents 
and private schools, not students.  551 U. S., at 420, n. 8. 
Of the 11 cases the Court cited, only one—West Virginia Bd. 
of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943)—was on point.  But, 
like  Tinker,  Barnette  failed  to  mention  the  historical  doc-
trine undergirding school authority.  Not until decades later 
did the Court even hint at this doctrine, and, then, only as
an aside.  See Fraser, 478 U. S., at 684. 

The  majority  does  no  better  today.  At  least  it  acknowl-
edges that schools act in loco parentis when students speak 
on campus.  See, e.g., ante, at 5.  But the majority fails to
address the historical contours of that doctrine, whether the 
doctrine applies to off-campus speech, or why the Court has 
abandoned it. 

B 
The Court’s failure to explain itself in Tinker needlessly 
makes  this  case  more  difficult.    Unlike  Tinker,  which  in-
volved  a  school’s  authority  under  a  straightforward  fact 
pattern, this case involves speech made in one location but 
capable of being received in countless others—an issue that
has been aggravated exponentially by recent technological 
advances.  The Court’s decision not to create a solid founda-
tion in Tinker, and now here not to consult the relevant his-
tory,  predictably  causes  the  majority  to  ignore  relevant
analysis.

First,  the  majority  gives  little  apparent  significance  to 
B. L.’s decision to participate in an extracurricular activity.
But  the  historical  test  suggests  that  authority  of  schools
over off-campus speech may be greater when students par-
ticipate  in  extracurricular  programs.    The  Lander  test  fo-
cuses on the effect of speech, not its location.  So students 
like B. L. who are active in extracurricular programs have
a greater potential, by virtue of their participation, to harm 
those programs.  For example, a profanity-laced screed de-
livered on social media or at the mall has a much different