Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 3

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

3 

Syllabus 

stances where the school did not stand in loco parentis.  And the vul-
garity in B. L.’s posts encompassed a message of criticism.  In addition, 
the school has presented no evidence of any general effort to prevent 
students from using vulgarity outside the classroom.  Pp. 9–10.   

(4) The school’s interest in preventing disruption is not supported
by the record, which shows that discussion of the matter took, at most,
5 to 10 minutes of an Algebra class “for just a couple of days” and that
some members of the cheerleading team were “upset” about the con-
tent  of  B.  L.’s  Snapchats.    App.  82–83.    This  alone  does  not  satisfy 
Tinker’s demanding standards.  Pp. 10–11.

(5) Likewise,  there  is  little  to  suggest  a  substantial  interference
in,  or  disruption  of,  the  school’s  efforts  to  maintain  cohesion  on  the
school cheerleading squad.  P. 11. 

964 F. 3d 170, affirmed. 

BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., 
and ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH and BARRETT, JJ., 
joined.  ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. 
THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.