SCOTUS defends cheerleader's freedom of speech in Snapchat case

After being temporarily banned from cheerleading in 2017, Brandi Levy’s parents sued their Philadelphia school district. While the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Levys, they did not forfeit support for schools’ authority to prevent unruliness off school grounds. 

J. Scott Applewhite/AP
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-to-1 in favor of a Pennsylvania teenager on grounds of freedom of speech. Brandi Levy was removed from her high school’s cheerleading squad in 2017 for posting a profane Snapchat post outside of school hours.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in favor of a Pennsylvania teenager who sued after a profane social media post got her banished from her high school’s cheerleading squad in a narrow decision in a closely watched free speech case.

The justices, in an 8-1 ruling authored by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, decided that the punishment that Mahanoy Area School District officials doled out to the plaintiff, Brandi Levy, for her social media post made at a local convenience store in Mahanoy City on a weekend, violated her free speech rights.

But, in a win for educators, the justices also preserved public schools’ power to sometimes regulate speech that occurs off campus, declining to endorse a lower court decision that found that the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of free speech prohibited extending officials’ authority outside the school.

Justice Breyer made clear, however, that schools’ power to punish off-campus speech is less than on campus.

“When it comes to political or religious speech that occurs outside school or a school program or activity, the school will have a heavy burden to justify intervention,” Justice Breyer wrote in the ruling.

But the justices do not believe, Justice Breyer said, that the “special characteristics that give schools additional license to regulate student speech always disappear when a school regulates speech that takes place off campus. The school’s regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances.”

The ruling left the door open to future cases to help better define the scope of that power.

In a dissent, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas said that schools “historically could discipline students in circumstances like those presented here.” Lower courts will also be “at a loss” in trying to apply the ruling, Justice Thomas added.

The case involved the free speech rights of America’s roughly 50 million public school students. Many schools and educators have argued that their ability to curb bullying, threats, cheating, and harassment – all frequently occurring online – should not be limited to school grounds.

The court pondered the competing issues of students having freedom of expression, especially political or religious views, and schools having the ability to prevent disruptions in the internet and social media era.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing Ms. Levy and her parents in the lawsuit against Mahanoy Area School District, had argued that students need protection from censorship and monitoring of their beliefs.

The case focused upon a 1969 Supreme Court precedent in a case known as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District that let public schools punish student speech when it would “substantially disrupt” a school community. At issue was whether that authority extended beyond the schoolhouse gates.

Cheerleading tryout

Ms. Levy, now an 18-year-old college student studying accounting, had been a member of the high school’s junior varsity cheerleading squad and tried out near the end of her freshman year for the varsity team. She made her Snapchat post in May 2017, two days after an unsuccessful tryout. She was 14 at the time.

On a Saturday at a Cocoa Hut convenience store in Mahanoy City in Pennsylvania’s coal region, she posted a photo of her and a friend raising their middle fingers, adding a caption using the same curse word four times to voice her displeasure with cheerleading, softball, school, and “everything.”

Ms. Levy’s photo was visible for 24 hours on Snapchat, along with another post questioning a younger girl’s selection to the varsity squad. Some cheerleaders and students chafed at the posts and the controversy disrupted classes, according to court papers. As punishment, Mahanoy Area High School coaches kicked her off the cheerleading squad for a year.

Ms. Levy and her parents sued the district, seeking reinstatement as a cheerleader and a judgment that her First Amendment rights had been violated. A federal judge ordered Ms. Levy’s reinstatement, finding that her actions had not been disruptive enough to warrant the punishment.

After the school district appealed, the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the 1969 precedent does not apply to off-campus speech and that school officials may not regulate such speech.

President Joe Biden’s administration supported the district in the case, arguing that off-campus student speech deserves broad protection unless it threatens the school community or targets specific individuals, groups, or school functions.

The case involved the power only of public schools, as governmental institutions, in regulating speech, not private schools.

This story was reported by Reuters.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.