Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

MAHANOY AREA SCHOOL DIST. v. B. L. 

Syllabus 

work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of oth-
ers.”  393 U. S., at 513.  The special characteristics that give schools 
additional license to regulate student speech do not always disappear
when  that  speech  takes  place  off  campus.    Circumstances  that  may
implicate a school’s regulatory interests include serious or severe bul-
lying or harassment targeting particular individuals; threats aimed at
teachers or other students; the failure to follow rules concerning les-
sons, the writing of papers, the use of computers, or participation in
other online school activities; and breaches of school security devices. 
Pp. 4–6.

(b) But three features of off-campus speech often, even if not always,
distinguish  schools’  efforts  to  regulate  off-campus  speech.  First,  a 
school will rarely stand in loco parentis when a student speaks off cam-
pus.  Second, from the student speaker’s perspective, regulations of off-
campus speech, when coupled with regulations of on-campus speech, 
include  all  the  speech  a  student  utters  during  the  full  24-hour  day.
That means courts must be more skeptical of a school’s efforts to regu-
late off-campus speech, for doing so may mean the student cannot en-
gage in that kind of speech at all.  Third, the school itself has an inter-
est in protecting a student’s unpopular expression, especially when the 
expression  takes  place  off  campus,  because  America’s  public  schools 
are the nurseries of democracy.  Taken together, these three features 
of much off-campus speech mean that the leeway the First Amendment
grants to schools in light of their special characteristics is diminished.
Pp. 6–8.

(c) The school violated B. L.’s First Amendment rights when it sus-

pended her from the junior varsity cheerleading squad.  Pp. 8–11.

(1) B. L.’s posts are entitled to First Amendment protection.  The 
statements made in B. L.’s Snapchats reflect criticism of the rules of a 
community of which B. L. forms a part.  And B. L.’s message did not 
involve features that would place it outside the First Amendment’s or-
dinary protection.  Pp. 8–9.

(2) The circumstances of B. L.’s speech diminish the school’s inter-
est in regulation.  B. L.’s posts appeared outside of school hours from 
a  location  outside  the  school.    She  did  not  identify  the  school  in  her 
posts  or  target  any  member  of  the  school  community  with  vulgar  or 
abusive  language.    B.  L.  also  transmitted  her  speech  through  a  per-
sonal cellphone, to an audience consisting of her private circle of Snap-
chat friends.  P. 9. 

(3) The  school’s  interest  in  teaching  good  manners  and  conse-
quently in punishing the use of vulgar language aimed at part of the 
school  community  is  weakened  considerably  by  the  fact  that  B.  L.  
spoke outside the school on her own time.  B. L. spoke under circum-