On Wednesday, June 23, 2021, in an 8-1 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) declared that, although school administrators have the power to punish student speech that occurs online or off campus if it is disruptive to the school setting,  in the case of Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. curse words posted from off campus did not adequately rise to the definition of disruptive. Thus, the foul language featuring “F-bombs” on Snapchat by a disgruntled cheerleader was deemed to be protected speech under the First Amendment.

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the Court’s majority, stated that,  “While public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome B. L.’s interest in free expression in this case.”

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, suggesting that the rule of thumb has been that schools can regulate off-campus speech if it could be determined to be harmful to the school, including students and staff. In this particular case, Justice Thomas stated that he felt such standard was met.  He stated that, “The court’s foundation is untethered from anything stable, and courts (and schools) will almost certainly be at a loss as to what exactly the court’s opinion today means,” Thomas wrote.

Thus, what was viewed as a potential landmark case with regard to off-campus speech was instead a very narrow ruling, leaving the door open for debate as to when schools can regulate off-campus speech as well as when they cannot do so. It has been left to future cases to produce such guidance.

In the words of Justice Breyer, “The school’s regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances,” Breyer wrote. “Thus, we do not now set forth a broad, highly general First Amendment rule stating just what counts as “off campus” speech and whether or how ordinary First Amendment standards must give way off campus.”

To view the Court’s decision, click here.