289 F. Supp. 3d 607
M.D. Penn.2017Background
- B.L., a Mahanoy Area High School sophomore and junior varsity cheerleader, posted an off-campus Snap on a weekend reading “fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything,” shown only to friends and not mentioning the school.
- Coach Luchetta learned of the Snap, printed it, and removed B.L. from the cheerleading squad, citing profanity and disrespect.
- School cheer rules prohibit foul language and online negative information about cheerleading; coaches enforce discipline for violations.
- Plaintiffs sued the Mahanoy Area School District and moved for a preliminary injunction; the court granted a TRO and held a hearing.
- The court found the District disciplined B.L. solely for off-campus profane speech and concluded the case was governed by First Amendment student-speech precedents limiting school authority over off-campus expression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a public school discipline a student for profane, off-campus speech? | B.L.: School cannot punish private off-campus speech absent substantial disruption. | District: School may discipline for off-campus profanity (especially via removal from extracurriculars). | Court: Likely plaintiffs prevail; Fraser profanity rule does not apply off-campus — school may not punish B.L. for the Snap. |
| Is the Snap "on-campus" or school-directed speech enabling Fraser-style regulation? | B.L.: Snap was off-campus, private, not referencing school, thus not on-campus speech. | District: Snap should be treated as school-directed/on-campus speech and therefore regulable. | Court: Snap was off-campus/private; District’s "importing" theory rejected. |
| Are the cheer rules void for vagueness/overbroad or viewpoint-discriminatory? | B.L.: Rules give officials excessive discretion and chill speech (initially raised multiple claims). | District: Rules are permissible to enforce discipline and school representation. | Court: Court did not rely on these claims; found relief based on off-campus speech violation and did not resolve vagueness/overbreadth. |
| Is preliminary relief appropriate (irreparable harm, balance, public interest)? | B.L.: Loss of First Amendment rights and exclusion from chief extracurricular causes irreparable harm; balance/public interest favor injunction. | District: Needs policy to discipline other students — harms from enjoining policy. | Court: Plaintiffs showed irreparable harm; balance favors them; public interest supports protecting constitutional rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (student speech actionable only if substantial disruption)
- Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (schools may regulate lewd/profane on-campus speech)
- Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (limits on student speech; context matters)
- J.S. v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 915 (3d Cir.) (Fraser does not apply to off-campus online speech)
- Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 205 (3d Cir.) (student protected from discipline for off-campus online profile)
- Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (Four-letter expletives protected in non-school settings)
- Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (schools can regulate school-sponsored speech)
- Sypniewski v. Warren Hills Reg’l Bd. of Educ., 307 F.3d 243 (3d Cir.) (school discipline does not require a speech code)