Law & Courts

7 Things to Know About the Cheerleader Speech Case Coming Up in the U.S. Supreme Court

By Mark Walsh — April 24, 2021 4 min read
Image shows a picture of Brandi Levy in her cheerleading uniform in front of Mahanoy Area High School.
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., an important case about whether school officials may discipline students for off-campus speech.

Education Week’s main preview of the case, including an interview with student Brandi Levy, is here. And we wrote separate stories about friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the Pennsylvania school district, about briefs supporting the student, and about a novel brief by students who serve on school boards (also in support of the student).

As the arguments approach in this potentially landmark case, we thought we would remind readers what is at stake and point out how they may listen to the arguments for themselves.

What is this case about?

Levy was a freshman at Mahanoy Area School District in 2017 when she became upset over not being selected for the varsity cheerleading team. She was at a convenience store—off the school campus—on a Saturday when she posted a short, profane message on Snapchat expressing her frustration with cheerleading and school. Her cheerleading coaches learned of the “snap” and suspended her from the JV team for one year.

What are the legal issues?

Levy sued under the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. She was reinstated to the cheerleading team in the short run, and two courts ruled in her favor. Most significantly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, in Philadelphia, ruled last year that the key Supreme Court ruling on student speech, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, generally does not give school officials the authority to discipline off-campus speech by students. Tinker was the 1969 high court decision involving students who had worn black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The ruling said student speech was protected as long as school was not substantially disrupted.

What is the school district’s view of the case?

The Mahanoy Area School District asked the Supreme Court to take up its appeal of the 3rd Circuit’s decision, and the high court agreed to do so. The district argues that schools have long regulated off-campus behavior by students, and that remote learning during the pandemic has further blurred lines between campus and off-campus conduct. Levy’s Snapchat message was directed at her school friends and fellow cheerleaders and disrupted that community, the district says.

What are the arguments for the student?

Lawyers for Levy argue that applying the Tinker case outside of school would seriously undermine the speech rights of students. They point out that under Supreme Court precedent and traditional First Amendment principles, Levy could not be punished outside of school for using the four-letter word she repeated in her Snapchat post. And they propose a test in which school officials would still have authority over the “school environment.” That would include the campus or its immediate environs during school hours, at a school-sponsored or -supervised event, on a school-sponsored website, while en route to or from school, or even from students’ own homes if they are engaged in school-sponsored remote learning or using a school laptop issued for school work.

How are the Supreme Court justices likely to view this case?

We’ll learn a lot more from the arguments, but here are a couple of things to think about. Four members the current court remain from the last time they heard a student speech case. That was Morse v. Frederick, in 2007, which involved a student who unfurled a large banner outside his high school that said, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” School officials perceived it as a pro-drug message and suspended the student. The Supreme Court upheld the authority of school officials to regulate student speech advocating illegal drug use.

The four members of the current court who participated are Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen G. Breyer, and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Thomas and Alito joined it, but they each wrote concurrences carving out their views on student speech in greater detail. Breyer, the only one of the four who is a member of the court’s liberal bloc, wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

Another way to look at it is that two members of the court are parents of K-12 students—Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, though their children attend private schools. Roberts and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch have children who finished high school in recent years.

Can I watch or listen to the arguments?

Since last May, the Supreme Court has conducted all of its arguments over the telephone due to the pandemic. They are not on Zoom or any other video platform, even for the justices and the participating lawyers. But anyone can listen to the arguments live or later in the day, or the next day, or whenever they want.

The best place to go to listen live is C-SPAN’s website. For some bigger cases, C-SPAN also puts the audio up on one of its cable channels, but that depends on whether Congress is in session and other factors. The court posts the audio on its website after arguments are completed.

The argument in the student speech case is April 28 beginning at 10 a.m. Eastern time. It is scheduled to go for one hour, but in reality the telephone arguments have dragged on a bit, and the argument in this case is likely to run closer to 90 minutes.

When can we expect a ruling?

The court should it issue its ruling in the case by the end of the term, in late June or early July.

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Well-Being Webinar
Attend to the Whole Child: Non-Academic Factors within MTSS
Learn strategies for proactively identifying and addressing non-academic barriers to student success within an MTSS framework.
Content provided by Renaissance
Classroom Technology K-12 Essentials Forum How to Teach Digital & Media Literacy in the Age of AI
Join this free event to dig into crucial questions about how to help students build a foundation of digital literacy.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Posting Ten Commandments in Schools Was Struck Down in 1980. Could That Change?
In 1980, the justices invalidated a Kentucky law, similar to the new Louisiana measure, requiring classroom displays of the Decalogue.
13 min read
Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry signs bills related to his education plan on June 19, 2024, at Our Lady of Fatima Catholic School in Lafayette, La. Louisiana has become the first state to require that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom, the latest move from a GOP-dominated Legislature pushing a conservative agenda under a new governor.
Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, signs bills related to his education plan on June 19, 2024, at Our Lady of Fatima Catholic School in Lafayette, La. One of those new laws requires that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom, but the law is similar to one from Kentucky that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in 1980.
Brad Bowie/The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate via AP
Law & Courts Biden's Title IX Rule Is Now Blocked in 14 States
A judge in Kansas issued the third injunction against the Biden administration's rule granting protections to LGBTQ+ students.
4 min read
Kansas high school students, family members and advocates rally for transgender rights, Jan. 31, 2024, at the Statehouse in Topeka, Kan. On Tuesday, July 2, a federal judge in Kansas blocked a federal rule expanding anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ students from being enforced in four states, including Kansas and a patchwork of places elsewhere across the nation.
Kansas high school students, family members and advocates rally for transgender rights, Jan. 31, 2024, at the Statehouse in Topeka, Kan. On Tuesday, July 2, a federal judge in Kansas blocked a federal rule expanding anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ students from being enforced in four states, including Kansas, and a patchwork of places elsewhere across the nation.
John Hanna/AP
Law & Courts Student Says Snapchat Enabled Teacher's Abuse. Supreme Court Won't Hear His Case
The high court, over a dissent by two justices, decline to review the scope of Section 230 liability protection for social media platforms.
4 min read
The United States Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on July 1, 2024.
The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on July 1, 2024. The high court declined on July 2 to take up a case about whether Snapchat could be held partially liable for a teacher's sexual abuse of a student.
Aashish Kiphayet/NurPhoto via AP
Law & Courts What the Supreme Court's Chevron Decision Could Mean for Biden's Title IX Rule
The decision overrules a 40-year-old precedent and could impact lawsuits challenging the final Title IX rule.
5 min read
Visitors pose for photographs at the U.S. Supreme Court on June 18, 2024, in Washington.
Visitors pose for photographs at the U.S. Supreme Court on June 18, 2024, in Washington. The high court on June 28 overruled a longtime precedent and held that courts, not federal agencies, have the primary authority to interpret ambiguous federal statutes.
Jose Luis Magana/AP