WASHINGTON – In a key free speech case for the Internet age, the U.S. Supreme Court found in favor of a Pennsylvania teenager who sued the Mahanoy Area School District after a profanity-laced Snapchat photo led to her removal from her high school’s cheerleading squad, though it stopped short of prohibiting public schools from regulating off-campus speech.
The high court’s justices ruled 8-1 that the punishment District officials handed down to plaintiff Brandi Levy for her Snapchat post, which was made on a weekend off school grounds, violated her rights to free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
While Levy is now an 18-year-old college student pursuing an accounting degree, back in May 2017, she was a 14 year-old high schooler and junior varsity cheerleader who unsuccessfully tried out to join the varsity squad.
Two days later, while at a convenience store in Mahanoy City, she posted a photo of her and a friend raising their middle fingers, adding a caption reading, “F— cheerleading, f— softball, f— school and f— everything.”
On Snapchat, such posts are available for view for only 24 hours. Some of Levy’s classmates were angered at her expression, and the subsequent controversy was said to have disrupted the learning process at school. As a result, Mahanoy Area High School coaches kicked Levy off the cheerleading squad for a full year.
In response, Levy and her parents filed suit against the District, wanting her to be reinstated to the cheerleading squad and declaratory relief that her First Amendment rights had been violated. The trial court judge found in her favor, ruling that her actions received a disproportionate punishment.
After the school district appealed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that the Supreme Court’s landmark Tinker v. Des Moines precedent, which permitted public schools to discipline student speech when it would “substantially disrupt” a school environment, did not apply in this case.
The District then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Levy and her parents were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Supreme Court majority finds that First Amendment protects Levy’s Snapchat post
Justice Stephen Breyer authored the Supreme Court’s decision in this case – and though the majority found in favor of Levy, the decision also retained the ability of schools to occasionally regulate speech when students are not in school.
“The school’s regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances,” Breyer said, specifically referencing extreme bullying or harassment and threats aimed at teachers or other students.
In general, Breyer noted that schools will have less power to police speech off-school grounds than at school – but the full breadth and depth of that power had yet to be defined once and for all in this case.
According to civil liberties advocates, at stake in this case were free speech rights for America’s roughly 50 million public school students living in the online age of social media.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter among the Supreme Court bench, said that schools have “historically” been able to discipline students in incidents such as the one at issue.
Levy was grateful for the Supreme Court’s ruling for agreeing that her school went too far.
“I was frustrated, I was 14 years old and I expressed my frustration the way teenagers do today. Young people need to have the ability to express themselves without worrying about being punished when they get to school,” Levy said.
“I never could have imagined that one simple snap would turn into a Supreme Court case, but I’m proud that my family and I advocated for the rights of millions of public school students,” Levy said
ACLU Pennsylvania Executive Director Reggie Shuford concurred with Levy.
“In this ruling, the Supreme Court has affirmed what we’ve said all along – students have greater free speech rights out of school and on their own time. The school district asked for vast powers to monitor and punish students’ speech at all times, no matter where or when it occurs. We are grateful that the court understood how dangerous that argument was and rejected it,” Shuford said in a statement.
The District also issued a statement regarding Wednesday’s ruling, praising the Supreme Court’s rejection of the Third Circuit’s earlier rationale.
“The Mahanoy Area School District is pleased with and vindicated by today’s Supreme Court decision. The School District unanimously won the issue upon which it sought Supreme Court review: All 9 Justices rejected the Third Circuit’s conclusion that school districts lack authority to regulate off-campus speech. The Supreme Court held that it does ‘not agree with the reasoning of the Third Circuit.’ The Supreme Court instead enumerated many examples of situations when school districts can regulate off-campus speech and made it clear that its list was not exclusive,” the District said.
“So, although the Court upheld the $1 judgment in favor of Ms. Levy, we are very pleased that the Court agreed with our arguments about schools’ authority to address off-campus speech under a wide variety of situations. This decision is an important vindication of schools’ authority to protect students and staff and to fulfill schools’ educational missions.”
U.S. Supreme Court case 20-255
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com