Facts of the Case
Brandi Levy (“B.L.”), a high school student in Mahanoy, Pennsylvania, did not make the varsity cheerleading team. Upset, she posted a Snapchat message over the weekend, off school grounds, containing vulgar language criticizing the school and the cheerleading program (“F*** school, f*** softball, f*** cheer, f*** everything”). The post was visible to her Snapchat friends, including other students and teammates. School officials suspended her from the junior varsity cheer team for a year, citing team rules about respect and avoiding negative social media posts. Levy and her parents sued, arguing that her First Amendment rights had been violated.
Constitutional Question
Does the First Amendment protect a student’s off-campus speech on social media from school discipline, and to what extent can public schools regulate such speech?
Arguments
- B.L.’s Arguments:
- Her speech occurred off-campus, outside of school hours, and on her personal device.
- The school has no authority to regulate private speech that did not cause substantial disruption.
- Punishing her for expressing frustration violates the First Amendment’s core protection of free expression.
- School District’s Arguments:
- The school has an interest in maintaining discipline and upholding team rules for extracurricular activities.
- Negative or vulgar posts about the school or cheer team undermine respect and team unity.
- Schools should have the authority to regulate off-campus online speech when it could impact the learning environment.
Decision
In an 8–1 ruling, the Supreme Court sided with B.L.
- The Court reaffirmed that schools may regulate some off-campus speech (such as bullying, threats, or harassment), but Levy’s Snapchat did not meet those standards.
- The Court emphasized that off-campus speech is generally outside the school’s authority, especially when it involves personal expression and criticism.
- Justice Breyer, writing for the majority, stressed that protecting unpopular or vulgar speech is essential to free expression.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that historically schools did exercise authority over students’ speech outside of school grounds.
Significance
- Clarified limits of school authority: Schools do not have broad power to regulate students’ off-campus speech, especially on social media.
- First Amendment protection for students strengthened: Students’ right to express frustration, criticism, and unpopular opinions outside of school is protected.
- Leaves open future questions: The Court did not adopt a clear, all-encompassing rule, instead noting that schools may still regulate off-campus speech in specific contexts (bullying, threats, cheating, harassment).
This case is considered a landmark ruling in the digital age, balancing student speech rights with schools’ disciplinary authority.