Supreme Court Upholds Cheerleader’s First Amendment Rights

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Aug 27, 2021 | 0 Comments

As minors under the jurisdiction of their schools, high school, and elementary students do not have an unlimited right to free speech. Legally, these institutions have a right to regulate speech that might prove disruptive to the learning environment. But what happens when the “disruptive” speech occurs off-campus? This was the question before the Supreme Court over the last several months as they heard arguments in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.

The Mahanoy case involved a high school cheerleader named Brandi Levy, who after failing to make the varsity squad, posted a message on the social media app Snapchat. The post, which was created off-campus, featured Levy and a friend raising their middle fingesr to the camera as well as a vulgar caption. As a result of this post, Levy was suspended for a year from the cheerleading program. Levy appealed her suspension, and the appeals process eventually sent the case to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on April 28, 2021.

What's at Stake

The First Amendment rights of students are defined by several precedents, the most significant of which is the 1968-69 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. This case established the so-called “Tinker test,” by which courts weigh the competing interests of the school's need to prevent disruption and the student's First Amendment rights. This test becomes more complicated when the speech in question occurs off-campus, as it did in Levy's case.

On June 23, 2021, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Levy, claiming her First Amendment rights had been violated. However, their decision was a narrow one. While they ruled that, in this specific case, Levy's First Amendment rights had been violated, they also stated that Tinker did not always prevent schools from regulating off-campus speech. Overturning the ruling of the lower Third Circuit Court, the Supreme Court ruled that Tinker did extend to certain kinds of off-campus speech. For example, schools may have a special interest in regulating such speech as bullying and the issuing of personal threats, even when it did not occur on school grounds. The Court, however, did not provide any specific guidance on when a school can constitutionally regulate a student's off-campus speech.

What's Next

While the Court's ruling in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. was a victory for free speech, it was a limited one that raised as many questions as it provided answers. The ruling did little to make the line between permissible and non-permissible speech any less blurry. If you or your child face discipline from a school because of something you or they have said, either on or off campus, don't wait until it's too late. Joseph D. Lento from the Lento Law Firm has handled countless free speech cases. Call him today at 888-535-3686.

About the Author

Joseph D. Lento

"I pride myself on having heart and driving hard to get results!" Attorney Joseph D. Lento passionately fights for the futures of his clients nationwide. Attorney Lento and his team represent students and others in disciplinary cases and various other proceedings at colleges and universities across the United States. Attorney Lento has helped countless students, professors, and others in academia at more than a thousand colleges and universities across the United States, and when necessary, he and his team have sought justice on behalf of clients in courts across the nation. He does not settle for the easiest outcome, and instead prioritizes his clients' needs and well-being. Joseph D. Lento is licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, is admitted pro hac vice as needed nationwide, and he can help you or your student address any school-related issue or concern anywhere in the United States.


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact Us Today!

If you, or your student, are facing any kind of disciplinary action, or other negative academic sanction, and are having feelings of uncertainty and anxiety for what the future may hold, contact the Lento Law Firm today, and let us help secure your academic career.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations - the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website. In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Allegheny, Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Lancaster, Lehigh, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Schuylkill, and York County. In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County, In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties. Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law. The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.