Summary
Highlights
The central issue in the Mahanoy case was the extent to which public schools can punish students for expression that occurs completely off school grounds, outside of school hours, and on their personal devices.
Brandi Levy sued her school district after being suspended from the junior varsity cheerleading squad for a year. Her suspension stemmed from a Snapchat post where she expressed frustration (using expletives) after not making the varsity cheerleading team, a post school officials deemed indecent and inappropriate.
Brandi asserted her First Amendment rights, arguing her expression was made during her own time, on her own phone, and off school premises, concerning an issue important to her and related to school decisions. The school district, conversely, argued that her expression caused a material and substantial disruption to the educational process, similar to the argument in the Tinker case.
The Supreme Court ruled Brandi's suspension unconstitutional, affirming her First Amendment free speech rights. The Court found her off-campus expression did not meet the 'material and substantial disruption' standard of the Tinker case. This landmark decision was the first time since 1969 the Supreme Court upheld students' free speech rights and the first time it explicitly protected off-campus expression.
The Court rejected a blanket rule stating all off-campus speech is immune from school discipline. However, it emphasized that granting schools absolute power over off-campus speech would deny students any free speech rights, an 'intolerable outcome.' The Court reiterated that schools must function as 'nurseries of a democracy,' teaching students the importance of protecting even unpopular speech.