Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

2 

MAHANOY AREA SCHOOL DIST. v. B. L. 

ALITO, J., concurring 

and therefore it is important that our opinion not be misun-
derstood.2 

I 
The  Court  holds—and  I  agree—that:  the  First  Amend-
ment  permits  public  schools  to  regulate  some  student 
speech  that  does  not  occur  on  school  premises  during  the
regular school day;3 this authority is more limited than the
authority that schools exercise with respect to on-premises 
speech;4 courts should be “skeptical” about the constitution-
ality of the regulation of off-premises speech;5 the doctrine 
of in loco parentis “rarely” applies to off-premises speech;6 
public school students, like all other Americans, have the 
right  to  express  “unpopular”  ideas  on  public  issues,  even
when those ideas are expressed in language that some find 

—————— 

All our other cases involving the free-speech rights of public school stu-
dents concerned speech in school or in a school-sponsored event or publi-
cation.  See Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675, 677–678 
(1986) (school assembly); Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S. 
260,  262  (1988)  (school  newspaper);  Morse  v.  Frederick,  551  U. S.  393, 
397 (2007) (display of banner on street near school at school-sponsored 
event). 

2 This case does not involve speech by a student at a public college or 
university.    For  several  reasons,  including  the  age,  independence,  and 
living  arrangements  of  such  students,  regulation  of  their  speech  may 
raise very different questions from those presented here.  I do not under-
stand the decision in this case to apply to such students. 

3 See ante, at 5 (stating that a public school’s authority to regulate stu-
dent speech does not “always disappear” when the speech “takes place 
off campus” (emphasis added)); ibid. (“The school’s regulatory interests 
remain  significant  in  some  off-campus  circumstances”  (emphasis 
added)). 

4 See  ante,  at  8  (stating  that  schools  have  “diminished”  authority  to 

regulate off-premises speech). 

5 See ante, at 7 (“[C]ourts must be more skeptical of a school’s efforts to 

regulate off-campus speech”). 

6 See  ibid.  (“[A]  school,  in  relation  to  off-campus  speech,  will  rarely

stand in loco parentis”).