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

B.L., a Mahanoy Area High School student, failed to make varsity cheer and posted a Snapchat story off campus on a weekend saying “fuck cheer” (visible to ~250 friends, many classmates).
A teammate screenshot the snap and coaches learned several students were “visibly upset”; coaches removed B.L. from the JV cheer team for a year.
B.L. appealed administratively without success, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming First Amendment violation, overbreadth, viewpoint discrimination, and vagueness.
The district court granted summary judgment for B.L., finding the snap was off-campus, protected speech and not a Tinker disruption; awarded nominal damages and expungement.
The Third Circuit affirmed: it held the snap was off-campus speech entitled to full First Amendment protection, Fraser does not reach off-campus speech, Tinker does not apply to off-campus speech, and B.L. did not waive rights by joining the team.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was B.L.’s Snapchat post protected speech?	B.L.: the post was expressive, off-campus, and entitled to full First Amendment protection.	School: profanity and offensive speech by students may be restricted.	Held: Protected; vulgarity alone does not strip First Amendment protection.
Was the speech on- or off-campus (affecting applicable standard)?	B.L.: created off campus, on her own device, on weekend, on private social platform—off-campus.	School: speech reached school community and affected team; argued school context.	Held: Off-campus—not school-sponsored, not bearing school imprimatur.
Can Fraser or Tinker justify discipline for this off-campus extracurricular speech?	B.L.: Fraser and Tinker don’t apply to off-campus speech like hers; no substantial disruption.	School: Fraser allows banning vulgar speech; Tinker applies to off-campus speech that foreseeably reaches or disrupts school, especially for extracurriculars.	Held: Fraser does not apply off campus; Tinker also does not apply to off-campus speech (holding Tinker limited to school context).
Did B.L. waive First Amendment rights by accepting team/school rules?	B.L.: any waiver must be knowing and voluntary; rules did not clearly cover this off-campus Snapchat.	School: team & handbook rules (respect, negative-information, personal conduct) justified waiver/discipline.	Held: No waiver—rules were not clear/compellingly broad enough to show an intentional surrender of rights.

Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (schools may regulate student speech that materially and substantially disrupts school operations)
Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) (schools may prohibit lewd or vulgar speech in school settings)
Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) (schools may regulate school-sponsored student expression related to pedagogical concerns)
Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) (schools may restrict student speech that reasonably promotes illegal drug use in a school context)
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (internet is a vast forum that warrants First Amendment protection; apply precedent faithfully)
Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017) (modern online forums are the new public square; courts should be cautious before limiting access)
J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 915 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc) (off‑campus online parody/profile treated as off-campus protected speech)
Layshock ex rel. Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc) (student’s off-campus MySpace parody protected; school lacked authority)
Wisniewski v. Bd. of Educ. of Weedsport Cent. Sch. Dist., 494 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2007) (reasonable-foreseeability test applied in threat-of-violence instant‑messaging context)
Kowalski v. Berkeley Cty. Schs., 652 F.3d 565 (4th Cir. 2011) (nexus-to-pedagogical-interests test used for off-campus harassment via MySpace)