## Facts

- B.L., a public high school student in Pennsylvania, was upset after not making the varsity cheerleading team and being assigned to junior varsity.
- Over the weekend, away from school, B.L. took a photo of herself and a friend with their middle fingers raised.
- Using her own smartphone, on Snapchat (a platform not run by the school) and without using school devices or accounts, B.L. posted the photo to her Snapchat story visible to about 250 “friends,” including classmates and cheer teammates.
- The caption included profane language expressing frustration with school and cheerleading (including “fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything”).
- Other students took screenshots and showed them to the cheerleading coaches.
- The coaches concluded the post violated team and school rules requiring respect, prohibiting “foul language and inappropriate gestures,” and restricting posting negative content about cheerleading, cheerleaders, or coaches online.
- The coaches suspended B.L. from the cheerleading team for one year.
- B.L.’s parents appealed the suspension to the athletic director, principal, superintendent, and school board; each upheld the suspension.
- B.L. and her parents sued the Mahanoy Area School District under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the discipline violated the First Amendment.
- The district court granted relief for B.L., ruling the school district could not punish her for protected off-campus internet speech; the school district appealed.

## Issues

1. Does *Tinker*’s substantial-disruption standard apply to student speech that is plainly off campus, including off-campus social media posts?
2. If *Tinker* does not apply, did any other doctrine allowing school regulation of student speech (or any generally unprotected category of speech) permit the school district to discipline B.L. for her Snapchat post?
3. Did the school district violate the First Amendment by suspending B.L. from the cheerleading team for one year based on her off-campus Snapchat post?

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the judgment for B.L.
- The court held that *Tinker* does not apply to off-campus student speech.
- Because B.L.’s Snapchat post was created off campus, on her own time, using her own device, and outside school-controlled channels, the school district lacked authority to punish it under *Tinker*.
- The court rejected arguments that a “nexus” to the school (because classmates saw the post and it referred to school/cheer) was enough to trigger school authority under *Tinker*, warning that such a theory would amount to round-the-clock school control over students’ expression.
- The court also held the speech did not fall within any exception that would allow school discipline: it was not school-sponsored speech, not a true threat, and not targeted harassment, and *Fraser* did not justify punishment because the profanity was not delivered in a school setting.
- The court further held that participation on an extracurricular team and agreement to team rules did not waive B.L.’s First Amendment rights as to off-campus expression.
- The court therefore concluded that the school district violated the First Amendment by disciplining B.L. for her off-campus Snapchat post.

## Legal Principles

- *Tinker v. Des Moines* creates a limited rule allowing schools to regulate student speech that would materially and substantially disrupt schoolwork or discipline, but that rule does not extend to speech occurring off campus.
- Off-campus student speech—speech outside school-owned, school-run, or school-supervised channels and not reasonably attributable to the school—generally receives the same First Amendment protection as other private speech.
- A school may not treat off-campus speech as regulable merely because it concerns school activities or is later discussed at school; a broad “connection to school” theory risks giving schools continuous authority over students’ speech.
- *Bethel School District v. Fraser* permits regulation of lewd speech in school settings; it does not authorize punishment for a student’s off-campus profanity on a private social-media account.
- *Hazelwood* applies to school-sponsored expression that could reasonably be seen as bearing the school’s imprimatur; private off-campus social-media posts are not school-sponsored speech.
- Participation in extracurricular activities and assent to team rules does not surrender constitutional rights to speak off campus; schools still must comply with the First Amendment when imposing discipline tied to off-campus expression.
- Schools may still address off-campus speech that falls into generally unprotected categories (such as true threats) or that violates other laws, but ordinary off-campus venting—even in vulgar terms—remains protected.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that the school district violated B.L.’s First Amendment rights by suspending her from cheerleading for a profane Snapchat posted off campus on her own device and time, ruling that *Tinker*’s school-disruption framework does not apply to off-campus student speech and that no other recognized basis justified the punishment.


B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District, 964 F.3d 170 (2020)