Mahanoy v. B.L. (2021)
Background Information
Understanding the facts and constitutional questions
🔗 Connecting to Our Guiding Question
When, if ever, should the government be allowed to limit a person's constitutional rights in order to protect the community?
This case asks: Should schools be able to limit students' First Amendment free speech rights (by punishing off-campus social media posts) to protect the school community from disruption and maintain team culture? Consider how this case balances individual rights to express frustration outside of school against the school's interest in maintaining discipline and positive school culture.
Key People in This Case
A JV cheerleader who didn't make varsity and vented her frustration on Snapchat with vulgar language. She was suspended from the team for the entire year and sued the school.
Filed the lawsuit on B.L.'s behalf, arguing the school had no authority to punish their daughter for speech that happened off-campus on a weekend.
Suspended B.L. from cheerleading, arguing her posts disrupted team morale and violated rules requiring athletes to be positive role models.
Took screenshots of B.L.'s Snapchat posts and showed them to her mother, who was one of the cheerleading coaches, starting the disciplinary process.
What Happened?
In 2017, a 14-year-old student named B.L. was a cheerleader at Mahanoy Area High School in Pennsylvania. She tried out for the varsity cheerleading team but did not make it. She would have to remain on the junior varsity team for another year.
That weekend, still upset about not making varsity, B.L. posted two images on Snapchat with extremely vulgar language and gestures expressing her frustration. She sent these posts to about 250 Snapchat friends, many of whom attended her school and some of whom were on the cheerleading team.
A teammate took screenshots of the posts and showed them to her mother, who was a cheerleading coach. The coaches were upset by the vulgar language and gestures, feeling that cheerleaders should be positive role models for the school.
The school suspended B.L. from the junior varsity cheerleading team for the entire upcoming year. The school said her posts violated team and school rules about conduct.
B.L. and her parents sued the school district, arguing that her First Amendment rights to free speech had been violated. They claimed the school had no authority to punish her for speech that occurred off-campus and outside of school hours.
The Big Question
Can schools punish students for speech posted on social media when they are off-campus and outside of school hours?
What You Need to Know
The First Amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."
This protects people's right to express themselves, even when that expression is offensive or critical.
The key question is whether schools have authority over student speech that happens away from school, or whether their authority is limited to on-campus activities.
Important Facts
- B.L. made the posts on a weekend, away from school property
- She used vulgar language and made obscene gestures
- The posts were seen by many students and some cheerleaders
- No significant disruption occurred at school as a result
- B.L. was suspended from the team for an entire year
- This was the first major Supreme Court case about social media and student speech
Vocabulary
Argument Sorting Activity
Work with your group to sort these arguments
Instructions: Read each argument below and select which side it helps from the dropdown menu. When you're finished, click "Check Answers" to see your results.
The Two Sides
Mahanoy School District
Schools can regulate speech that targets school activities and disrupts the school environment, even if made off-campus. B.L.'s posts were directed at the school and affected team morale and discipline.
B.L.
Schools cannot punish students for speech made off school grounds on their own time. The First Amendment protects her right to vent frustration on social media outside of school hours.
| Argument | Answer |
|---|---|
| Other courts have allowed schools to punish students for criticizing school officials online. Evidence: In Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools (2011), a court ruled schools could punish a student for creating a MySpace page bullying a classmate. In Doninger v. Niehoff (2011), a student was punished for a blog post calling administrators "douchebags." | |
| Social media posts can be seen by many students and can spread quickly to cause disruption. Evidence: B.L. sent her Snapchat to approximately 250 friends — many of whom attended her school. Within hours, screenshots had spread to coaches and administrators. Even "disappearing" posts can be saved and shared. | |
| B.L. never required anyone to see her posts - they were shared with her chosen friends. Evidence: Snapchat posts were only visible to B.L.'s chosen friends — not the public. They were designed to disappear in 24 hours. A teammate chose to screenshot and share them with adults, but B.L. didn't force anyone to see her frustration. | |
| The Court's decision in Tinker bars schools from punishing speech based on disagreement with the message. Evidence: In Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the Supreme Court ruled students don't "shed their constitutional rights...at the schoolhouse gate." Schools can only punish speech that causes "substantial disruption" — not just speech they find offensive or rude. | |
| With online learning, there is no clear separation between on-campus and off-campus activities. Evidence: During the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021), millions of students learned from home. The Court noted that "the school's regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances." The line between "school" and "home" has blurred. | |
| Allowing schools to punish off-campus speech gives them too much control over students' lives. Evidence: Justice Breyer wrote that schools have a "heavy burden" to justify punishing off-campus speech because students spend only about 6-7 hours at school but are affected by rules 24/7. Off-campus, parents — not schools — supervise students. | |
| The First Amendment protects students' right to express frustration and criticism. Evidence: The Supreme Court has ruled that even vulgar speech is protected by the First Amendment. In Cohen v. California (1971), the Court protected a man wearing a jacket saying "F*** the Draft" — showing that offensive words don't lose constitutional protection. | |
| Most federal courts have ruled that schools can regulate student speech that affects the school, even when made off-campus. Evidence: Before Mahanoy, multiple federal appeals courts ruled that schools could punish off-campus speech if it was "reasonably foreseeable" that it would reach school and cause disruption. This gave schools significant power over online speech. | |
| Schools need authority to maintain discipline and positive culture in their programs. Evidence: In Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995), the Court ruled that students in extracurricular activities can be held to higher standards. The school had rules requiring cheerleaders to "have a good attitude" and be positive representatives of the school. | |
| B.L. made her posts on a weekend, away from school property, using her personal social media account. Evidence: B.L. posted on a Saturday afternoon from a local convenience store — not school property. She used her personal phone and personal Snapchat account — not any school technology. The school had zero involvement in where, when, or how she posted. | |
| Snapchat posts disappear quickly and are not permanent like other social media. Evidence: Snapchat messages are designed to disappear after 24 hours (or even seconds). B.L. expected her frustrated vent to vanish — not be screenshotted, saved, and reported to coaches. She didn't intend for it to be permanent. | |
| Cheerleaders represent the school and should maintain appropriate conduct at all times. Evidence: B.L. signed team rules when she joined cheerleading that required being a positive representative of the school. Cheerleaders wear school uniforms and perform at school events — they are public representatives of the school's image. | |
| B.L.'s posts contained no threats, harassment, or even mention of her specific school. Evidence: B.L. wrote "f*** school f*** softball f*** cheer f*** everything" — no names, no threats, no specific school mentioned. The coach admitted disruption lasted only 5-10 minutes over a couple days. This was frustration, not harassment. |
Key Terms for Arguments
Important concepts to understand when debating this case
Special conduct requirements for students who participate in extracurricular activities.
Someone who sets a positive example for others to follow.
Programs and teams that are officially part of the school.
Evidence Vault
Real sources to build your debate arguments
Complete the Argument Sort to Unlock
Finish the sorting activity above and check your answers to access real case sources.
Analyze the Sources
Read each excerpt carefully. Decide which side of the case it supports — or if it could be used by both sides.
Off-Campus Speech
Off-Campus Speech
Minimal Disruption
Minimal Disruption
First Amendment Protection
First Amendment Protection
Vague School Rules
Vague School Rules
Team Rules Violation
Team Rules Violation
Impact on Team Environment
Impact on Team Environment
School-Connected Activity
School-Connected Activity
Classroom Disruption
Classroom Disruption
Connecting to Today
How these constitutional questions still matter
Social media has transformed how students communicate - and created new challenges for schools. Consider these modern situations:
School Social Media Policies
Many schools now have policies about what students can post online, even from home. Some students have been suspended for posts criticizing teachers, coaches, or school policies.
Think about: Where does school authority end and personal freedom begin in the digital age?
Cyberbullying
Students sometimes use social media to bully classmates from home. Schools argue they need to address this behavior even if it happens off-campus because it affects the school environment.
Think about: Should schools be able to punish cyberbullying that happens entirely outside school?
24/7 Monitoring?
Some schools use software to monitor students' social media for concerning content. Critics say this invades privacy; supporters say it helps prevent violence and self-harm.
Think about: Is there a difference between punishing speech and monitoring for safety?
Discussion Questions
- If a student posts something at 10pm from their bedroom, should the school be able to respond?
- How do you balance students' free speech rights with protecting other students from online harassment?
- Does it matter if the post mentions the school by name versus being a general complaint?
Additional Resources
Go deeper with these resources