Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.

rdf:langString Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.

rdf:langString Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., A Minor, By And Through Her Father Lawrence Levy And Her Mother Betty Lou Levy

rdf:langString Thomas

rdf:langString Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett

rdf:langString ___

rdf:langString Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., A Minor, By And Through Her Father Lawrence Levy And Her Mother Betty Lou Levy

rdf:langString While public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome B. L.’s interest in free expression in this case. Third Circuit affirmed.

rdf:langString Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.

rdf:langString Breyer

rdf:langString Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the ability of schools to regulate student speech made off-campus, including speech made on social media. The case challenged past interpretation of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and Bethel School District v. Fraser, previous Supreme Court decisions related to student speech which may be disruptive to the educational environment, in light of online communications. The case centered on Brandi Levy, identified as B.L. in pleadings, a student at Mahanoy Area High School in Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania, who posted an angry, profane Snapchat message from an off-campus location after she failed to make the school's varsity cheerleading squad. Though sent to a private circle of friends and deleted later, the message was shown to school staff, and Levy was suspended from cheerleading the next year under the school's policy relating to social media. The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit's ruling in regards to Levy's case in an 8–1 decision in June 2021, though overruled the Third Circuit's opinion related to off-campus speech relative to Tinker. The Court affirmed that through Tinker, schools may have a valid interest to regulate student speech off-campus that is disruptive, but did not define when this regulation can occur, leaving this open for lower courts in future litigation. The Supreme Court ruled specifically for Levy, holding that the school's interests to prevent disruption under Tinker were not sufficient to overcome her First Amendment rights.

rdf:langString Alito

rdf:langString Gorsuch

rdf:langString Whether Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 , which holds that public school officials may regulate speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school, applies to student speech that occurs off campus.