Mahanoy Area takes free speech suit to Supreme Court
MAHANOY CITY – Mahanoy Area’s bid to find justification in suspending a teen from cheerleading for an off-campus Snapchat post may reach our country’s high court next month.
In 2017, a then-freshman in cheerleading, identified in court documents as B.L., was suspended from the team for posting an expletive-laced “snap” to her Snapchat story, expressing frustration with school and cheerleading.
The “snap” was saved by another student and shown to their parent, a coach, and B.L. was suspended.
She was reinstated to the team in September of 2017, and a federal court in Lackawanna County ruled in her favor in March of 2019, a decision the Mahanoy Area School District promptly appealed.
The school district lost that appeal in June, at the Third Circuit Court Of Appeals.
The appeals court, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania said in June, “unanimously agreed that the school violated the First Amendment,” and additionally, two of the three judges “ruled that public schools do not have the power to discipline students for off-campus speech even if the speech causes or is likely to cause a disruption on campus.” The ACLU described the ruling as “the most expansive ruling on students’ off-campus speech rights in the country.”
Earlier this month, Mahanoy Area petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case.
Their brief called the appeals court’s decision “a disaster,” and expressed fears that, without the power to police students off-campus, such as in the case of cyberbullying, they “cannot protect student welfare without risking damages suits.”
“Five other circuits and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court allow schools to discipline disruptive off-campus speech,” the district writes, citing a 1969 case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.
“No school can afford to test whether the Third Circuit might recognize some unstated other theory for addressing specific threats or harassment,” the school argues. “The decision below avowedly subjects school administrators to money damages for regulating off-campus speech. Schools would be in an intolerable position even if the Third Circuit left schools’ authority over off-campus threats or harassment unclear.”
B.L. and family filed a brief in opposition with the Supreme Court, describing the original event as follows:
“This case stems from a momentary expression of frustration, voiced by a disappointed student, B.L., on a weekend, far from school, on Snapchat, a medium designed for temporary, self-deleting messages. After failing to make the varsity cheerleading team, and while shopping with her friend, B.L. typed a message, which disappeared in 24 hours, that read ‘f— school f— softball f— cheer f— everything.’ The message did not identify any particular school or any official associated with the school. It did not cause any disruption at the school. But when another student took a screenshot of the message to preserve it and showed it to her mother, a cheerleading team coach, the school suspended B.L. from the team for the year.
“Both the district court and all three judges on the court of appeals agreed that such off-hand, private, off-campus, ephemeral expression cannot be the basis for punishment under the First Amendment. That unsurprising resolution of a necessarily factbound case does not warrant the Court’s review.
The Supreme Court will decide if they will hear the case next month.
About Author
