Law & Courts

U.S. Supreme Court to Weigh Whether Schools May Discipline Students for Internet Speech

By Mark Walsh — January 08, 2021 5 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

The U.S. Supreme Court late Friday agreed to hear a major case on student speech, granting a Pennsylvania school district’s appeal of a lower court ruling that had overturned the discipline of a high school student who posted a vulgar message on Snapchat in a dispute involving her cheerleading team.

The question is one the high court has sidestepped several times in recent years: Whether its landmark 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, applies to student speech that occurs off campus, particularly on the internet. The question has become even more urgent as schools have shifted to remote learning because of COVID-19, advocates say.

In Tinker, the court upheld the right of students to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, but allowed room for school administrators to regulate speech that would disrupt the work and discipline of the school. The high court has narrowed student speech rights in a series of cases since Tinker.

The new case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (No. 20-255), stems from a 2017 incident in which a sophomore, identified as B.L., posted a message on Snapchat one Saturday night that said “F**k school ... f**k cheer f**k everything” after she was placed on the junior varsity cheerleading team instead of the varsity squad.

While “snaps” are self-deleting after a short time, a teammate of the student took a screenshot of her message, and it came to the attention of cheerleading coaches, who said it violated team and school rules to avoid foul language and disrespect for teammates and coaches. B.L. was removed from the JV team for the season, a decision upheld by administrators and the school board.

B.L. and her parents sued the Mahanoy district, alleging that her removal from the team violated the First Amendment free-speech clause and that the school’s rules were unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.

The student won in a federal district court, which awarded her $1 in nominal damages plus attorneys’ fees. That ruling was affirmed last June by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, in Philadelphia.

“To be sure, B.L.'s snap was crude, rude, and juvenile, just as we might expect of an adolescent,” Judge Cheryl Ann Krause wrote for the unanimous 3rd Circuit panel. “But the primary responsibility for teaching civility rests with parents and other members of the community. As arms of the state, public schools have an interest in teaching civility by example, persuasion, and encouragement, but they may not leverage the coercive power with which they have been entrusted to do so.”

The panel took note of two earlier cases in which the full 3rd Circuit held that students who ridiculed their principals online could not be punished by school authorities, decisions that the Supreme Court later declined to review.

The panel in the Mahanoy district case last year clarified a key point about discipline for off-campus speech it said was not crystal clear from the earlier 3rd Circuit decisions.

“We hold today that Tinker does not apply to off-campus speech—that is, speech that is outside school-owned, -operated, or -supervised channels and that is not reasonably interpreted as bearing the school’s imprimatur,” the panel said last year.

The panel acknowledged that five other federal appeals courts have ruled that Tinker can be applied to student off-campus speech when there is a sufficient “nexus,” or connection, to school.

At the time of the 3rd Circuit’s decision, Justin Driver, a professor at Yale Law School and the author of a 2018 book about student rights under the U.S. Constitution, told Education Week that he agreed with the ruling but that the Supreme Court should take up the case to provide greater clarity to lower courts and schools about regulation of student off-campus speech.

The Mahanoy school district, in its appeal to the Supreme Court, cited Driver’s comment among other arguments urging the court to review the case.

“This case presents an ideal vehicle for resolving a critically important and acknowledged circuit conflict over whether public K-12 schools may discipline students for any off-campus speech,” says the district’s brief, filed by veteran Supreme Court litigator Lisa S. Blatt of Washington. “The question presented is all the more important in the Internet age. Students’ near-ubiquitous and near-constant access to social media creates ever more avenues for off-campus communications that can rapidly permeate the school environment.”

The National School Boards Association filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the Pennsylvania district that was joined by the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and AASA, the School Superintendents Association.

“The 3rd Circuit’s stark line between off-campus and on-campus speech is untenable, especially in the age of social media,” the brief says. “It is now unclear if schools can regulate, among other things, racist, vulgar, or sexually harassing speech that occurs online and off campus, even if that speech is directed at other students or school administrators, and even if it is otherwise reasonably likely to materially disrupt on-campus life.”

Both the district and the school groups argue that the rise of remote learning because of COVID-19 raises new questions about schools’ authority to discipline students for online behavior.

“Under the 3rd Circuit’s bright-line rule, it is unclear that teachers can discipline students who disrupt the online classroom,” the NSBA brief says. “The ongoing shift from the conventional in-person classroom to remote learning has substantially obscured any clear line that may once have existed between on-campus and off-campus student speech.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, representing B.L. and her parents, unsuccessfully urged the court not to take up the case, arguing that the ruling below was correct.

“In a weekend comment in an evanescent Snapchat message, B.L. swore in expressing her disappointment at not making the varsity team to her friends,” the ACLU brief says. “The notion that a school can discipline a student for that kind of spontaneous, non-threatening, non-harassing expression is contrary to our First Amendment tradition, and finds no support in this court’s student speech cases.”

The Supreme Court granted review of the Mahanoy district’s appeal the same day the justices took it up for the first time in their private conference. It was one of a dozen cases the court granted review on Jan. 8 as it approaches the mid-January cutoff point for scheduling arguments for decision this term.

The student speech case could be argued this spring, likely in April, and decided by June, though the court sometimes puts off some cases granted in January until the next term.

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
Reading & Literacy Webinar
The Future of the Science of Reading
Join us for a discussion on the future of the Science of Reading and how to support every student’s path to literacy.
Content provided by HMH
Mathematics K-12 Essentials Forum Helping Students Succeed in Math
Student Well-Being Live Online Discussion A Seat at the Table: The Power of Emotion Regulation to Drive K-12 Academic Performance and Wellbeing
Wish you could handle emotions better? Learn practical strategies with researcher Marc Brackett and host Peter DeWitt.

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 Supreme Court to Weigh State Laws Barring Transgender Athletes in Girls' Sports
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up transgender sports laws from Idaho and West Virginia, among the 27 states that have such laws.
5 min read
This artist sketch depicts Justice Amy Coney Barrett, from left, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as the Justices announce opinions at the Supreme Court in Washington, on June 27, 2025.
An artist sketch depicting Justice Amy Coney Barrett, from left, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as the Justices announce opinions at the Supreme Court in Washington, on June 27, 2025. The Supreme Court on July 3, 2025, announced it will hear cases challenging Idaho and West Virginia laws that bar transgender students from participating in girls’ or women’s school sports, stepping into a high-profile legal battle over transgender rights in schools.
Dana Verkouteren via AP
Law & Courts Appeals Court Backs Fla. Law Barring Transgender Teacher's Use of Her Pronouns
A federal court upheld Florida’s ban on K-12 teachers using pronouns that differ from their sex assigned at birth when speaking to students.
4 min read
A new billboard welcoming visitors to "Florida: The Sunshine 'Don't Say Gay or Trans' State," is seen on April 21, 2022, in Orlando, Fla. Florida's state government and LGBTQ+ advocates have settled a lawsuit challenging a law that bars teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity in public schools.
A billboard welcoming visitors to "Florida: The Sunshine 'Don't Say Gay or Trans' State," is seen on April 21, 2022, in Orlando. The billboard was a commentary by an LGBTQ+ rights group on a controversial law backed by Gov. Ron DeSantis regarding the teaching of certain topics. A federal appeals court on July 2 refused to block a related law, one barring teachers from using pronouns or titles that don't match their sex assigned at birth.
John Raoux/AP
Law & Courts 16 States Sue Trump Admin. to Restore Mental Health Grants for Schools
Democratic state officials are challenging the Education Department ending mental health funding, which had passed with bipartisan support.
3 min read
Audience members listen as President Joe Biden speaks during an event to celebrate the passage of the "Bipartisan Safer Communities Act," a law meant to reduce gun violence, on the South Lawn of the White House, July 11, 2022, in Washington, D.C.
Audience members listen as then-President Joe Biden speaks during an event to celebrate the passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act on the South Lawn of the White House on July 11, 2022. The legislation provided funding for two school mental health grants that the Trump administration terminated in late April. Sixteen states are now suing to restore the funding.
Evan Vucci/AP
Law & Courts What a Supreme Court Ruling Means for All the Education Lawsuits Against Trump
The decision could change the course of education-related cases that have been trickling through the courts since Trump returned to office.
8 min read
The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen May 21, 2025 in Washington, D.C.
The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen May 21, 2025 in Washington. On Friday, the court limited the ability of lower courts to issue universal injunctions that put a policy on hold nationwide. The ruling could affect how a number of cases challenging Trump administration policies proceed.
Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images