# High School Student "Free Speech" Case Before SCOTUS **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [April 28, 2021, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931 "2021-04-28T15:07:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2021, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931/343 "2021-06-23T15:02:06Z")
The fact this needed to be decided at the SCOTUS level is a indictment of our entire system of law and government ---
**Author:** ![BippityBoppityBoo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bippityboppityboo/32/5745_2.png) [@BippityBoppityBoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BippityBoppityBoo)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2021, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931/344 "2021-06-23T15:52:38Z")
Free speech is at the heart of our democracy. The indictment should be of the particular school district that created the infringement that needed resolved at the SCOTUS. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2021, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931/345 "2021-06-23T15:53:48Z")
I think it was the right decision IF what I’m reading is correct. If she had just been let go from the Cheer squad for violating team rules or “conduct unbecoming a cheerleader” then that if OK since cheer or any team is optional. But I keep reading that she violated a school rule to get kicked off. So if the school is banning free speech then they are in the wrong. So does anyone know for sure if it was a school rule or a team rule or just the coach booting her off the team? ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2021, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931/346 "2021-06-23T16:02:02Z")
> [@BippityBoppityBoo](#): > > Free speech is at the heart of our democracy. Yes, which is why this should never have gotten past the district court. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2021, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931/347 "2021-06-23T16:11:06Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Yes, which is why this should never have gotten past the district court. As I understand it, the student won her case at the district level. It was the schoolboard that appealed the decision, and lost again, and repeated this process up to the Supreme Court. How is this an indictment of our law and government? Should we _not_ have an appeal process where plaintiffs and defendants both can challenge the legitimacy of a court decision that goes against them? ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2021, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931/348 "2021-06-23T16:14:32Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > So does anyone know for sure if it was a school rule or a team rule or just the coach booting her off the team? What the opinion says: > That week, several cheerleaders and other students approached the cheerleading coaches “visibly upset” about B. L.’s posts. Id., at 83–84. Questions about the posts persisted during an Algebra class taught by one of the two coaches. Id., at 83. After discussing the matter with the school principal, the coaches decided that because the posts used profanity in connection with a school extracurricular activity, they violated team and school rules. As a result, the coaches suspended B. L. from the junior varsity cheerleading squad for the upcoming year. B. L.’s subsequent apologies did not move school officials. The school’s athletic director, principal, superintendent, and school board, all affirmed B. L.’s suspension from the team. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2021, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931/349 "2021-06-23T16:23:50Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > How is this an indictment of our law and government? Should we _not_ have an appeal process where plaintiffs and defendants both can challenge the legitimacy of a court decision that goes against them? You need valid grounds for an appeal. In this case there were none. This was politics in action, not law. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2021, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931/350 "2021-06-23T16:38:55Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > You need valid grounds for an appeal. In this case there were none. Which probably goes a long way towards explaining why the school kept losing its appeals. Which, again, sounds like the system is working. Unless you’re suggesting that courts should determine if an appeal is valid _before_ they hear the appeal? Which would be a neat trick, but I’m not sure how they could pull it off. > [@Omniscient](#): > > This was politics in action, not law. How so, exactly? Whose politics, and their politics about what? ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2021, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931/351 "2021-06-23T16:49:06Z")
I think you’re being intentionally obstinate here. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2021, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931/352 "2021-06-23T16:52:50Z")
I am not. Those are genuine questions made in an attempt to make sense out of your statements here. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2021, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931/353 "2021-06-23T16:59:00Z")
> **[About the U.S. Courts of Appeals](https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/about-us-courts-appeals)** > > What happens when the Supreme Court comes to a tied decision? One outcome is that the decision made by the Court of Appeals that heard the case stands. Find practical, need-to-know information about the U.S. Courts of Appeals, their role, their... > Grounds for Making an Appeal > The reasons for an appeal vary. However, a common reason is that the dissatisfied side claims that the trial was conducted unfairly or that the trial judge applied the wrong law, or applied the law incorrectly. The dissatisfied side may also claim that the law the trial court applied violates the U.S. Constitution or a state constitution. The original trial was neither unfair nor was the law misapplied. The circuit court should have refused to hear the appeal. If you don’t understand the difference between the grounds for an appeal and the actual appeal itself I don’t think I’m the one to teach it. ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2021, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931/354 "2021-06-23T17:06:33Z")
I don’t know if they had grounds (but both the appeals court and SCOTUS apparently thought they did, and they are the ones who count). That aside, the fact it went up to SCOTUS now means that there is precedent that all US courts are bound to take into consideration with a respect to student speech. That seems like a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2021, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931/355 "2021-06-23T17:21:57Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > The original trial was neither unfair nor was the law misapplied. The circuit court should have refused to hear the appeal. I don’t know that it’s immediately clear that the law was misapplied, though. I mean, I thought the school was in the wrong when I first read about this story, and agree with the outcome of the case, but the previous ruling on the law here didn’t specifically cover this situation. This seems like a necessary clarification, and the only way to get this sort of clarification is to fight it up through the courts. Certainly, the three (?) judges on the court of appeals, and the nine on SCOTUS, disagree with you. If the law was clear and unambiguous on the subject beforehand, why did these judges accept the case? “Politics?” Again, whose politics, and for what? What political agenda do you think was being unjustly served by hearing this appeal? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2021, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931/356 "2021-06-23T17:27:31Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > What political agenda do you think was being unjustly served by hearing this appeal? Especially an appeal that they were going to deny. Any “politics” that could have been involved would have been the courts wishing to make the decision of the lower court a precedent within their jurisdiction. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2021, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931/357 "2021-06-23T17:42:56Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > The original trial was neither unfair nor was the law misapplied. The circuit court should have refused to hear the appeal. The Supreme Court can do that, but the appeal to the Court of Appeals is a right to every party that loses at the District Court. The most the Court of Appeals could have done would be to affirm the District Court without oral argument (on the briefing alone). ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2021, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931/358 "2021-06-23T17:44:37Z")
I have a related question about mootness that this case raises for me. It has been years since she was a high school student, so nothing the courts could have done could have reinstated her on the team. So, I guess that’s not enough to make it moot. How about if the school changed its policy? What if the school said that they will no longer police the students’ off-campus social media activities? Would that have made the case moot? I guess, in this case, since they were the ones who kept losing and appealing, my question is answered – they could have just stopped appealing. Maybe this is a question for another thread, but there are lawyers on this one, so I’m hoping I could get a quick answer and then I’ll be on my way. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2021, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931/359 "2021-06-23T18:10:43Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > How about if the school changed its policy? What if the school said that they will no longer police the students’ off-campus social media activities? Would that have made the case moot? I guess, in this case, since they were the ones who kept losing and appealing, my question is answered – they could have just stopped appealing. A good question and the subject of a recent decision > Students have few reliable options for securing judicial redress when their free-speech rights are infringed. Equitable-relief claims are frequently mooted by graduation or by revision of the challenged policy, and speech restrictions often do not inflict financial injuries that rise to the level of compensatory damages. As a result, nominal damages, which address violations that do not result in compensable financial loss, are often the only remedy available. > [In 8-1 ruling, Supreme Court allows students’ free speech zone lawsuit to proceed](https://www.thefire.org/in-8-1-ruling-supreme-court-allows-students-free-speech-zone-lawsuit-to-proceed/) > **[Court revives lawsuit from student seeking nominal damages for free-speech...](https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/03/court-revives-lawsuit-from-student-seeking-nominal-damages-for-free-speech-violation-at-public-college/)** > > Update (Monday, March 8, 3:30 p.m.): This article has been updated with expanded analysis. The Supreme Court on Monday issued a major ruling in a dispute over free speech on the grounds of a public college. By a vote of 8-1 in Uzuegbunam v.... ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2021, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931/360 "2021-06-23T18:14:50Z")
The opinion > **[20-255\_g3bi.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf)** > > 269.58 KB I am disappointed that the court took it as granted that removing her from cheer due to speech implicates the first amendment - that was my principal objection. The court does not even mention the fourteenth amendment. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2021, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931/361 "2021-06-23T18:15:53Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > The original trial was neither unfair nor was the law misapplied. The circuit court should have refused to hear the appeal. Your argument here is ridiculous, on a number of levels. First, as @Procrustus notes, the Circuit Courts don’t have the sort of discretion about whether or not to hear a case that the Supreme Court has. And if the Circuit Court had simply affirmed on the briefings, the school district still could have appealed to the Supreme Court. Second, there was a very important issue related not only to the broad question of free speech, but to exactly whether, and how, the Supreme Court’s key decision in _Tinker_ should apply to off-campus speech, especially in the digital age when off-campus speech has a much greater potential to disrupt school activities. When _Tinker_ was decided, the boundary of the “school house gate,” which the court used in that case as the demarcation line regarding a school’s ability to police student speech, was clear and unambiguous. Some things happened off campus, and some things happened on campus, and it was very easy to determine which was which. The problem, in the age of smartphones and social media, is that it is much easier for the lines to blur, and for speech that occurs off campus to find its way into and permeate the school community. The specific question that the school district asked the Supreme Court to consider in this case was: > [@](#): > > Whether [Tinker], which holds that public school officials may regulate speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school, applies to student speech that occurs off campus. And it’s worth noting that, in its opinion, the Supreme Court actually differs from the Third Circuit Court on exactly how to evaluate this issue. From the decision: > [@](#): > > Unlike the Third Circuit, we do not believe the special characteristics that give schools additional license to regulate student speech always disappear when a school regulates speech that takes place off campus. The school’s regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances. The parties’ briefs, and those of amici, list several types of off-campus behavior that may call for school regulation. These include serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals; threats aimed at teachers or other students; the failure to follow rules concerning lessons, the writing of papers, the use of computers, or participation in other online school activities; and breaches of school security devices, including material maintained within school computers. The court acknowledges the difficulty of drawing a clear and bright line here (reflecting the uncertainty expressed by some of the justices at oral argument), but argues that, even though it might be acceptable for schools to regulate some off-campus speech, courts should look closely at the particular circumstances of the case, and ask questions regarding things like whether the school was acting _in loco parentis_, how much student speech the school’s rules would cover, and the idea that schools themselves are supposed to be “nurseries of democracy” that encourage a variety of opinions. The Supreme Court might have affirmed the Third Circuit’s ruling that the school violated the student’s free speech rights, but it’s reasoning was more narrow. The Third Circuit argued that the reasoning in _Tinker_ didn’t apply at all because schools basically have no right to regulate off-campus speech at all. The Supreme Court said that schools sometimes can regulate speech that occurs off campus, but each case needs to be considered in light of the circumstances of the speech, the extent to which it disrupts school activities, etc. Whether or not you agree with the Supreme Court’s reasoning, your argument that the case should never have made it to the Supreme Court really has very little substance. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2021, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931/362 "2021-06-23T18:17:54Z")
@Procrustus – thanks! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-school-student-free-speech-case-before-scotus/940931.md?page=19)