Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

does not meet Tinker’s demanding standard. 

Third, the school presented some evidence that expresses
(at least indirectly) a concern for team morale.  One of the 
coaches testified that the school decided to suspend B. L., 
not because of any specific negative impact upon a particu-
lar member of the school community, but “based on the fact 
that there was negativity put out there that could impact
students in the school.”  App. 81.  There is little else, how-
ever, that suggests any serious decline in team morale—to 
the  point  where  it  could  create  a  substantial  interference
in, or disruption of, the school’s efforts to maintain team co-
hesion.  As we have previously said, simple “undifferenti-
ated fear or apprehension . . . is not enough to overcome the 
right to freedom of expression.”  Tinker, 393 U. S., at 508. 

It might be tempting to dismiss B. L.’s words as unworthy 
of  the  robust  First  Amendment  protections  discussed
herein.  But sometimes it is necessary to protect the super-
fluous  in  order  to  preserve  the  necessary.    See  Tyson  & 
Brother  v.  Banton,  273  U. S.  418,  447  (1927)  (Holmes,  J., 
dissenting).  “We cannot lose sight of the fact that, in what 
otherwise  might  seem  a  trifling  and  annoying  instance  of 
individual distasteful abuse of a privilege, these fundamen-
tal societal values are truly implicated.”  Cohen, 403 U. S., 
at 25. 

* 

* 

* 

Although we do not agree with the reasoning of the Third 
Circuit’s  panel  majority,  for  the  reasons  expressed  above,
resembling  those  of  the  panel’s  concurring  opinion,  we 
nonetheless  agree  that  the  school  violated  B.  L.’s  First
Amendment rights.  The judgment of the Third Circuit is 
therefore affirmed. 

It is so ordered.