Modalities

Modalities

Mahanoy v BL (2021)

By Christopher Gutierrez-Cook

In 2017, a freshman trying out for Cheer and Softball, did not make varsity nor get the softball position she wanted. She posted on Snapchat from a convenience store "F*** School, F*** Softball, F*** everything." She was then kicked off the team and suspended from JV Cheer for one year​

Did the school have authority to punish​?

​Mahanoy v BL

The First Amendment limits but does not entirely prohibit regulation of off-campus student speech by public school officials, and, in this case, the school district’s decision to suspend B.L. from the cheerleading team for posting to social media vulgar language and gestures critical of the school violates the First Amendment.

Does the First Amendment prohibit public school officials from regulating off-campus student speech?

All the judges ruled in favor of BL except Justice Thomas. How did they reach their conclusion? What arguments did they make?

​

The Courts Decision

In law, a majority opinion is a judicial opinion agreed to by more than half of the members of a court. A majority opinion sets forth the decision of the court and an explanation of the rationale behind the court's decision.

8-1 Decision in favor of ​BL; Justice Breyer writing, Thomas Dissent

Majority Opinion

Multiple Choice

Third, the school itself has an inter-est in protecting a student’s unpopular expression, especially when the expression takes place off campus, because America’s public schools are the nurseries of democracy. - Mahanoy v BL, Majority Opinion

• Textual

• Structural

• Doctrinal

• Ethical

• Prudential

Multiple Choice

It might be tempting to dismiss B. L.’s words as unworthy of the robust First Amendment protections discussed herein. But sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary. See Tyson & Brother v. Banton, 273 U. S. 418, 447 (1927) (Holmes, J., dissenting). “We cannot lose sight of the fact that, in what otherwise might seem a trifling and annoying instance of individual distasteful abuse of a privilege, these fundamental societal values are truly implicated.” Cohen, 403 U. S., at 25

• Structural

• Doctrinal

• Ethical

• Prudential

Multiple Select

Second, the school argues that it was trying to prevent disruption, if not within the classroom, then within the bounds of a school-sponsored extracurricular activity. But we can find no evidence in the record of the sort of “substantial disruption” of a school activity or a threatened harm to the rights of others that might justify the school’s action. Tinker, 393 U. S., at 514. Rather, the record shows that discussion of the matter took, at most, 5 to 10 minutes of an Algebra class “for just a couple of days” and that some members of the cheerleading team were “upset” about the content of B. L.’s Snapchats

• Historical

• Textual

• Structural

• Doctrinal

• Prudential

Multiple Choice

The strength of this anti-vulgarity interest is weakened considerably by the fact that B. L. spoke outside the school on her own time. See Morse, 551 U. S., at 405 (clarifying that although a school can regulate a student’s use of sexual innuendo in a speech given within the school, if the student “delivered the same speech in a public forum outside the school context, it would have been protected”); see also Fraser, 478 U. S., at 688 - Majority Opinion

• Structural

• Doctrinal

• Ethical

• Prudential

• Historical

A concurring opinion is an opinion that agrees with the majority opinion but does not agree with the rationale behind it. Instead of joining the majority, the concurring judge will write a separate opinion describing the basis behind their decision.

​Mahanoy v BL; Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch, concurring

Concurring Opinion​

Multiple Choice

public schools have the duty to teach students that freedom of speech, including unpopular speech, is essential to our form of self-government;8 the Mahanoy Area High School violated B. L.’s First Amendment rights when it punished her for the messages she posted on her own time while away from school premises;

• Structural

• Doctrinal

• Ethical

• Prudential

Multiple Select

Practical necessity likewise dictates that teachers and school administrators have related authority with respect to other in school activities like auditorium programs attended by a large audience. See Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675, 685 (1986) (“A high school assembly . . . is no place for a sexually explicit monologue directed towards an unsuspecting audience of teenage students”) - Concurring Opinion, Justice Alito

• Doctrinal

• Ethical

• Prudential

• Textual

Multiple Choice

There are more than 90,000 public school principals in this country27 and more than 13,000 separate school districts.28 The overwhelming majority of school administrators, teachers, and coaches are men and women who are deeply dedicated to the best interests of their students, but it is predictable that there will be occasions when some will get carried away, as did the school officials in the case at hand. If today’s decision teaches any lesson, it must be that the regulation of many types of off-premises student speech raises serious First Amendment concerns, and school officials should proceed cautiously before venturing into this territory. - Justice Alito, Concurring Opinion

• Textual

• Doctrinal

• Structual

• Prudential

A dissenting opinion is an opinion in a legal case in certain legal systems written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court which gives rise to its judgment.

Mahanoy v BL; Justice Thomas Dissenting​

Dissenting Opinion

Multiple Choice

The cheerleading coach responded by disciplining B. L. The Court overrides that decision—without even mentioning the 150 years of history supporting the coach. A more searching review reveals that schools historically could discipline students in circumstances like those presented here. Because the majority does not attempt to explain why we should not apply this historical rule and does not attempt to tether its approach to anything stable, I respectfully dissent. - Dissenting Opinion, Justice Thomas

• Historical

• Textual

• Structural

• Doctrinal

Multiple Choice

While the majority entirely ignores the relevant history, I would begin the assessment of the scope of free-speech rights incorporated against the States by looking to “what ‘ordinary citizens’ at the time of [the Fourteenth Amendment’s] ratification would have understood” the right to encompass. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 813 (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Cases and treatises from that era reveal that public schools retained substantial authority to discipline students. - Thomas Dissenting Opinion

• Historical

• Textual

• Doctrinal

• Structural