Free Speech After the Final Bell

Your weekend rant could land you in trouble at school. Mahanoy v. B.L. shows how far schools can really reach into your private life and what the First Amendment actually protects.

What Mahanoy v. B.L. Means for Students

Imagine posting something out of frustration on a Saturday night.

You are not at school. You are not in class. You are not representing a team at that moment. You are just upset.

By Monday, you are suspended.

That is what happened in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., a Supreme Court case that quietly reshaped what free speech looks like for students in the social media era.

What Actually Happened

A high school student in Pennsylvania did not make the varsity cheerleading team. Over the weekend, while off campus, she posted a Snapchat expressing her frustration using profanity to criticize the school and cheer team.

It was meant to disappear.

Instead, someone took a screenshot. Coaches saw it. She was suspended from the team for a year.

At first glance, it seems like a typical school discipline issue. But legally, it raised a much bigger question.

How far does a school’s authority really go?

The Constitutional Issue

Schools often rely on Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which allows them to regulate student speech if it causes a substantial disruption at school.

But Tinker was decided in 1969, long before Snapchat, screenshots, and 24/7 digital lives.

The student in Mahanoy was not on campus. She was not in class. She was not using school equipment.

So the Court had to answer something new.

Can schools punish students for speech that happens off campus on their own time?

What the Supreme Court Said

In an 8 to 1 decision, the Court ruled in the student’s favor.

The justices acknowledged that schools do have some authority over off-campus speech, especially in cases involving threats, bullying, or serious harassment.

But they also drew an important boundary.

If schools could regulate both on-campus and off-campus speech freely, that would give them control over students nearly all the time. And that is not consistent with the First Amendment.

The student’s post was immature. It was vulgar. It was critical.

But it was not a serious disruption.

And that mattered.

Why This Case Feels So Relevant

For previous generations, school and personal life were more separate. You left school and that was it.

Now, your phone connects everything.

One post can reach classmates, teachers, and administrators within minutes. The line between in school and out of school is blurred.

Mahanoy recognizes that reality and sets a limit.

It reminds schools that students are still individuals with constitutional rights even when their speech is messy or unpopular.

The Bigger Question

This case is not about cheerleading.

It is about whether schools should have authority over students’ private expression beyond campus.

And it forces a larger conversation.

In a digital world where everything spreads instantly, who decides when speech crosses the line?

The Supreme Court did not give schools unlimited power.

It also did not give students unlimited freedom.

Instead, it tried to balance both.

And for teenagers navigating school and social media at the same time, that balance matters.

Sources

Supreme Court of the United States. Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., No. 20‑255, slip opinion, June 23, 2021, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf
.