June 2nd 2025 | Reshmita Nayudu
Edited by Ella Chon
The internet is an avenue where people can express their opinions, form their identities, and learn— these are only a few functions of an unimaginable number that it can provide. Yet, this digital space blurs the boundaries between public and private life and lines between school authority and individual autonomy. In such a world—one that the Founding Fathers likely never imagined when writing the Constitution—the application of the law can be problematized. When a student posts a message online, outside of institutional grounds and hours, should school administrators have the power to discipline her for it? Or does the First Amendment protect such speech, even when it’s vulgar, emotional, or critical of school officials?
These questions come head to head in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021) [3]. This article will examine this Supreme Court case, particularly through the lens of student speech under the First Amendment and how the judiciary redefined the boundaries of student speech in the digital era. It will analyze how Brandi Levy’s off-campus social media post became the basis for a constitutional challenge, ultimately affirming that schools have limited authority to regulate students’ online expression outside the institution’s grounds. Additionally, this article examines the Court’s emphasis on protecting unpopular speech as essential to democratic values, and how the ruling sets a critical precedent for balancing school discipline with students’ rights in an increasingly interconnected world.
Brandi Levy, known in court documents as B.L., was a 14-year-old high school freshman who attended Mahanoy Area High School in 2017. She failed to make her school’s varsity cheerleading team, and was instead placed in the junior varsity team for the upcoming year. After this decision was released, she visited a local convenience store where she vented her frustrations on Snapchat. She posted two images to her story, which was visible to around 250 people for 24 hours. Her first image featured her and a friend with their middle fingers up and read: “F*** school f*** softball f*** cheer f*** everything.” She followed it up with another critical post referencing the unfair treatment she felt that she and a teammate had received. This post, though it was blank, mentioned how another freshman made varsity without needing another year of junior varsity. The stories circulated among the cheerleading team and were brought to the coaches’ attention. Although the posts were created entirely off-campus and outside school hours, they quickly reached administrators who suspended Levy from joining the junior varsity cheer team. Their reasoning behind the decision emphasized the use of profanity in relation to a school extracurricular activity which violated campus rules. Levy attempted to apologize, yet the school authorities remained firm in their decision. In response, Levy and her parents filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court on the basis that the school violated her freedom of speech that was protected under the First Amendment [3].
The Supreme Court has regulated student speech prior to this case. For example, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) established that schools could not prohibit free speech from their students unless it caused a “substantial disruption” or “invaded the rights of others” [5]. In Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986), the Court held that schools could regulate students’ speech if it was “offensive” or “lewd” [1]. In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988), the Court ruled that schools could regulate speech in school-sponsored activities such as the newspaper, if it caused teaching-related concerns [2]. Lastly, in Morse v. Frederick (2007), the Court held that schools could prohibit speech that promoted illegal drug use [4].
Using the basis of Tinker v. Des Moines [5], the District Court decided in favor of Levy. They found that since the Snapchats had not caused substantial disruption, her punishment violated the rights given to her under the First Amendment. The school district appealed to the Third Circuit, which affirmed the District Court’s decision. The majority went further, claiming that Tinker could not even apply to Levy’s Snapchats as her speech was off-campus. The school therefore could not discipline her for her speech [3].
The case was appealed further to the Supreme Court. Levy’s legal team argued that punishing her for speech made off-campus violated her First Amendment rights. The school district maintained that it had a vested interest in preserving team cohesion and avoiding disruption. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of B.L., holding that while schools may have some authority over off-campus speech, that power is limited. In an 8–1 decision, Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, emphasized three key reasons why off-campus speech is entitled to heightened constitutional protection. First, schools do not stand in loco parentis—in place of the parent—when students are off campus. Second, allowing schools to police all speech, both in and out of school, would in essence permit them to control student expression at all times. Finally, the Court reaffirmed the central role of public schools as “nurseries of democracy,” where unpopular expression, such as criticism of the school, must be tolerated and protected [3].
However, it must be noted that the Court did not abandon its previous rulings, such as Tinker, which permit schools to regulate speech that causes “substantial disruption” [5]. But in B.L.’s case, no such disruption occurred. The fallout from her Snapchats was minimal and manifested in a few minutes of discussion in algebra class and some discomfort among fellow cheerleaders. This, the Court found, was far from the substantial disorder needed to justify disciplinary action. As Justice Breyer noted, “Sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary” [3].
But the Court made it clear that they disagreed with the Third Circuit on the matter of schools’ ability to regulate speech off-campus. The Third Circuit claimed that the license schools have to regulate speech on campus did not exist off-campus. The ruling the Court put forth acknowledged the need for schools to address serious off-campus issues such as harassment, threats, or bullying [3].
The Court also recognized that the school does indeed have a vested interest in disallowing students from participating in vulgar language that could impact students, coaches, and its teams. It breaks the interest down into three parts. First, it considers the school’s interest in teaching good manners to its students, which doesn’t apply here as Levy spoke outside of school and because the school was not acting in loco parentis. Second, the school argued that they were trying to prevent disruption, which Levy’s speech did not cause. Third, the school seemed to be concerned about team morale, which had no evidence of being disturbed by Levy [3].
This decision ultimately revealed gaps and lingering ambiguities. The Court declined to create a comprehensive framework for evaluating all off-campus speech, leaving future cases to determine the boundaries. Justice Alito’s concurring opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch, explored this dilemma further. Alito emphasized that while parents may delegate some authority to schools, especially when students are involved in extracurriculars or on school property, that authority should not extend to broad censorship of a student’s private life or speech about public issues [3]. Justice Thomas dissented, expressing concern that the ruling undermined long-standing school authority and opened the door to chaos in managing student discipline. But his lone voice underscored the overwhelming judicial consensus: campus administrators must tread carefully when regulating student speech beyond their walls [3].
In conclusion, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. represents a crucial moment in the ongoing evolution of student free speech rights in the digital age. By affirming that off-campus speech is generally protected under the First Amendment, the Court reinforced the importance of safeguarding students’ unpopular or emotional expressions, especially in the context of the internet and social media. While schools retain some authority to regulate speech that causes substantial disruption or harm, this ruling establishes clear limitations on their power to police students’ private expressions outside of institutional grounds. Although the decision leaves some questions unresolved, particularly regarding the regulation of off-campus speech in future cases, it marks a significant step toward balancing students’ rights with the need for academic discipline in an increasingly interconnected world. Ultimately, the case underscores the Court’s recognition that protecting free speech is essential for fostering a democratic society, while also acknowledging the unique challenges posed by modern technology.
Sources:
[1] “Bethel School District v. Fraser.” Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bethel-School-District-No-403-v-Fraser
[2] “Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.” U.S. Courts. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-activities/hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier/facts-and-case-summary-hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier
[3] “Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L..” Supreme Court of the United States. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf
[4] “Morse v. Frederick.” U.S. Courts. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-activities/morse-v-frederick/facts-and-case-summary-morse-v-frederick
[5] “Tinker v. Des Moines.” U.S. Courts. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-activities/tinker-v-des-moines/facts-and-case-summary-tinker-v-des-moines
JHULR 
Leave a comment