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 whether a public school may punish a student's off-campus social media posts to protect the school community from disruption and keep team discipline. As you read, weigh a student's right to express frustration outside school against the school's interest in order and a positive team 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.
One student took pictures of B.L.'s Snapchat posts with a separate phone and shared them with other cheerleaders. Another student who got the pictures showed them to her mother, a cheerleading coach.
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 to her Snapchat story (visible to about 250 friends for 24 hours). Many of those friends attended her school, and some were on the cheerleading team.
One student took pictures of the posts and shared them with other cheerleaders, and another student showed them to her mother, a cheerleading coach. Several cheerleaders and other students came to the coaches "visibly upset." The coaches decided that because the posts used profanity in connection with a school activity, they broke team and school rules.
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
- At school, questions about the posts came up in an Algebra class for, at most, 5 to 10 minutes over a couple of days
- B.L. was suspended from the team for an entire year
- This was the first time the Supreme Court decided whether a public school could punish a student's off-campus social media post
Vocabulary
Argument Sorting Activity
Work with your group to sort these arguments
Instructions: For each argument, choose which side you would use it for — or “Both.” There is no score. The same fact can help opposite sides. Then rank and steelman in Weigh below.
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. posted to her Snapchat story, which about 250 friends could see for 24 hours — many of whom attended her school. A student took pictures of the posts with a separate phone, and the pictures spread to the coaches. 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 classmate photographed them with a separate phone and shared them with other cheerleaders; B.L. didn't force anyone to see them. | |
| 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 line between "school" and "home" has blurred. | |
| Allowing schools to punish off-campus speech gives them too much control over students' lives. Evidence: In 2020, the federal appeals court that heard B.L.'s case ruled that Tinker's disruption test does not apply to speech made off campus. That would leave a student's weekend speech outside school control. | |
| 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. | |
| Several federal appeals courts had 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. B.L. had acknowledged team rules requiring cheerleaders to "have respect for [their] school, coaches, . . . [and] other cheerleaders" and to avoid "foul language and inappropriate gestures." | |
| 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). But a classmate photographed B.L.'s posts with a separate phone, and the pictures spread to the coaches. | |
| Cheerleaders represent the school and should maintain appropriate conduct at all times. Evidence: Before joining, B.L. acknowledged team rules that said, "Remember, you are representing your school when at games, fundraisers, and other events." 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." The posts used profanity about school and teams. They did not threaten violence or attack a classmate. A second snap mentioned another student who also did not make varsity, but it was a complaint about tryouts, 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 Argument Sort above, then open the Evidence Vault for 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
Here are three situations that raise the same question about a school’s power outside school:
Posting From Home
Imagine a student who writes a post at night, from home, complaining about a teacher, a coach or a school rule. Other students see it the next morning.
Think about: Where does school authority end and personal freedom begin in the digital age?
Cyberbullying
In a 2023 national survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 16% of high school students said they had been bullied electronically, through texting or social media, during the past year. Bullying that starts at home can follow students into school. That is why some schools say they must be able to respond to it.
Source: CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data Summary & Trends Report, 2013–2023
Think about: Should schools be able to punish cyberbullying that happens entirely outside school?
Watching Student Accounts
In March 2025, The Seattle Times and the Associated Press reported on Vancouver Public Schools in southwest Washington. The district used a program called Gaggle to scan what students searched and wrote on school-issued laptops and school accounts, 24 hours a day. Between October 2023 and October 2024, nearly 2,200 students, about 10% of the district, were the subject of a Gaggle alert. A principal said the district could not “put a price on protecting students.” Reporters who asked for records were also given access to almost 3,500 sensitive student documents that were not protected by passwords.
Source: The Seattle Times and the Associated Press, March 12, 2025
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