Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.
The Conclusion
**The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the school violated the student's First Amendment rights.** Schools may discipline off-campus speech only when it substantially disrupts school operations. A private Snapchat expressing frustration about cheer, though crude, did not cause such disruption.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
A ninth-grader who didn't make the varsity cheerleading squad posted a Snapchat video from a convenience store on a Saturday, saying the f-word about school and cheer. The school suspended her from the junior varsity squad for a year. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in June 2021 that the school violated her First Amendment rights. Off-campus, off-hours speech on a personal device isn't subject to the same school authority as in-school speech. The decision built on Tinker v. Des Moines but clarified: schools have some authority over off-campus speech that substantially disrupts school functions, but a profanity-laced private social media post about disappointment is not that.
Conclusion
**The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the school violated the student's First Amendment rights.** Schools may discipline off-campus speech only when it substantially disrupts school operations. A private Snapchat expressing frustration about cheer, though crude, did not cause such disruption.
Notes
OT2020. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support