Skip Navigation
Court Case Tracker

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (Amicus Brief)

The Brennan Center filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to protect students’ right to free speech while they are off-campus.

Published: April 2, 2021

Update: On June 23, 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of B.L., a high school cheer­leader who was suspen­ded from the cheer team after using obscen­it­ies on Snapchat. The Court held that the school over­stepped in discip­lin­ing B.L. for her off-campus speech, affirm­ing the First Amend­ment rights of public-school students. Justice Breyer recog­nized in his opin­ion that schools are “nurs­er­ies of demo­cracy” and that "the school itself has an interest in protect­ing a student’s unpop­u­lar expres­sion, espe­cially when the expres­sion takes place off campus." Justice Breyer went on to expand on this point: “That protec­tion must include the protec­tion of unpop­u­lar ideas, for popu­lar ideas have less need for protec­tion. Thus, schools have a strong interest in ensur­ing that future gener­a­tions under­stand the work­ings in prac­tice of the well-known aphor­ism, ‘I disap­prove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’” Social media is a crit­ical space for students to engage in a wide vari­ety of self-expres­sion, polit­ical speech, and activ­ism. We are pleased that the Court recog­nized this and reaf­firmed that students retain the right to express them­selves freely outside school. Read the Court’s opin­ion here.


On March 31, 2021, the Bren­nan Center, along with the Elec­tronic Fron­tier Found­a­tion (EFF) and the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amend­ment, filed an amicus brief arguing that state­ments made by students on social media when they are off-campus should be fully protec­ted by the First Amend­ment. In Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., a high school cheer­leader posted obscen­it­ies about her cheer program to Snapchat after she failed to make the varsity squad, which viol­ated the cheer­lead­ing program’s rule that students cannot post any “negat­ive inform­a­tion” about cheer­lead­ing online. The posts were uploaded over the week­end and outside of school grounds, but one of her follow­ers took a screen­shot and shared it with school author­it­ies, who suspen­ded her from parti­cip­at­ing in the cheer program for a year. The student and her family sued the school district in response.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that an excep­tion from Tinker v. Des Moines – a Viet­nam War-era case about students wear­ing black armbands in protest of the War – permit­ting regu­la­tion of students’ speech where it causes mater­ial and substan­tial disrup­tion to the oper­a­tions of school does not apply to off-campus speech like social media, at least where it does not threaten viol­ence to others. The appeals court held that, even if off-campus speech shared on social media finds its way into school via other students’ smart­phones or devices, schools do not have the power to discip­line the original poster for it. 

The Supreme Court gran­ted certi­or­ari earlier this year, and the case is being litig­ated by the ACLU of Pennsylvania. The Bren­nan Center joined a brief draf­ted by EFF in support of the student, urging the Supreme Court to uphold the Third Circuit’s decision. The brief argues that the Tinker excep­tion should not allow public schools to punish off-campus speech and that it is crit­ical to limit the Tinker excep­tion to on-campus speech given the cent­ral role social media plays in students’ lives. Social media has increas­ingly become a plat­form for students to engage in a wide vari­ety of self-expres­sion, polit­ical speech, and activ­ism. Expand­ing Tinker to allow public schools to punish students for speech expressed off-campus would dramat­ic­ally expand schools’ power to police students’ private lives and chill import­ant, consti­tu­tion­ally protec­ted expres­sion. 

The Liberty and National Secur­ity Program has raised concerns regard­ing the monit­or­ing of K-12 students’ social media, includ­ing op-eds in the Wash­ing­ton Post and Sun Sentinel, a resource on school district expendit­ures on monit­or­ing tools, and a joint state­ment of civil and human rights concerns with the Center for Demo­cracy and Tech­no­logy. If schools are given broad author­ity to punish students for speech on social media, they will have incent­ive to step up their monit­or­ing; if they are limited to circum­stances in which the harm arising from the speech is signi­fic­ant, not merely disrupt­ive, they are likely to spend less time track­ing students’ social media.