Posted: August 2nd, 2022

Assignment 5: Mahanoy v. Levy

For this assignment, review the recent Supreme Court opinion in Mahanoy v Levy and draft an essay explaining which part of the opinion you agree with and why (i.e., if you were on the Court, would you sign on to the majority opinion, the concurring opinion, or the dissent?). Be specific in your explanation/analysis. A copy of the opinion is attached. (Note: the first few pages are the “Syllabus,” which provides a summary of the ruling.). You can also read an overview of the case here: https://www.oif.ala.org/oif/mahoney-v-levy-the-evolution-of-students-first-amendment-rights/.

Format: a well-formed essay should have a logical structure, a key statement or thesis, and the thesis and subtopics should be analyzed and explored. References to specific examples will bolster your argument. As for formatting, I prefer that writing assignments are single-spaced, with a double space between paragraphs.
Length: Two pages maximum.

Assignment 5: Mahanoy v. Levy

Name
Course
Instructor
Date

Assignment 5: Mahanoy v. Levy
In Mahanoy Area School District v. B. Levy., A Minor, By And Through Her Father, Levy, Et Al. [2021] the Supreme Court held that public schools had a special interest to regulate speech within the school, and some off-campus speech. However, in the case of B. Levy, the special interest did not apply, as her social media outburst was not directed at any single person, nor did the school have enough sufficient grounds to establish that Levy’s action would result in disruption of school activities. In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court in 2021, upheld that Levy’s interest in this case superseded the school’s interest and as such pointing out that the school actions infringed on her freedom of speech, and other critical provisions under the first amendment of the US Constitution.
In Tinker v Des Moine [1969] the supreme court established that public school can punish disruptive speech in school, but in Brandy Levy’s case, the issue was to establish whether public schools had a role to play in regulating student’s speech off campus. To resolve the case, the supreme court sought to balanced the student’s interest (as protected interest in freedom of speech under the 1st amendments rights) over the school’s interests which is to ensure minimal school activity disruption (by prohibition of vulgar language against the school and coaches). Levy’s interest in free speech, as a student, outweighed the school’s interest in punishing her, the court also acknowledged that the school had an interest in proper behavior by its students, but within the school’s premises and outside only on special occasions.
The decision in this case is not about whether Levy’s speech is protected speech. It is about whether the school has the right to exercise and infringe on student’s speech when they are out of school. Levy is protected in expressing these opinions (no matter how profane) because the speech did not take place at school or at a time when she was under school supervision. In Morse v. Frederick, 551 US 393 – Supreme Court 2007 the Court upheld the school’s authority over Frederick because the school was acting in a supervisory capacity in protecting the interests of the other students from Frederick’s seemingly pro-drug pronouncement. The Mahanoy Area School District had no such interest in this case, as Levy’s message was not targeted to any individual person.
Freedom of speech is a guaranteed right that offers all citizens a capacity to freely express their views, beliefs and ideologies. However, public schools in their official capacity, have a legitimate interest to restrict students from their freedom of expression, especially if said freedoms is likely to disrupt the process of learning or actively work to offend other students and cause a disruption in school. In Tinker v Des Moine it was established that school sponsored expressions can be limited and censored by the authorities for pedagogical reasons and if the acts of freedom actively work to harm and collide with other persons legal rights. In Levy’s case, it was argued that her speech may have clashed with the schools’ interest as it was likely to cause disruption, and a major point of contention was whether speech over social media was to be regulated by the school.
During the oral argument, Justice Clarence Thomas raised a very important question on how far should public schools regulations should be considered in this modern age. Unlike in 1969, where there was no internet, and virtually limited student contact after school, there was a growing urgency to curb student’s off campus speech on the internet, especially in relation to bullying and other forms of disruptions. SCJ Thomas inquired whether posting on social media invoked the interest of the school, as social media had virtually altered personal boundaries. The defendant attorney, Lisa Blatt, argued that when it comes to the internet the lines have been blurred and aspects such as geography were rendered meaningless, and it was for this reason that the school invoked its special interest in relation to Levy’s speech. The defendant viewed that the speech was somehow in its purview of regulation as the internet was virtually everywhere, at all times. Dave Cole the complainant attorney argued that creating a boundary in the virtual space was precisely the reason as to why a distinction should be made, invoking loco parentis. Cole argued that if the speaker was under the supervision of the school, then the school had legitimate interest to stop them from swearing, but they were at home, on a weekend, using their own mobile phone. It was not the school’s job, but her parent prerogative to intervene and regulate her speech as per loco parentis and not the schools. In commentary, SCJ Kavanaugh argued that the school overreacted, and it did not provide a reasonable punishment relative to the offense.
The school’s interest in preventing disruption was not supported as there was no reasonable disruption witnessed in the school. It infringed on the student’s freedom of speech, and as such violated her first amendment rights, effectively suspending her from the school, and as well as punishing her by removing her from the varsity cheerleading squad. The school was at fault as her speech was performed outside the premise and supervision of the school, at her own free time, on her own device. As such, their interest in teaching good manners and punishing vulgar language was less considered due to the geographical location of the snap at the time.

References
Mahanoy Area School District v. B. Levy., A Minor, By And Through Her Father, Levy, Et Al.
[2021]
Morse v. Frederick, 551 US 393 – Supreme Court 2007
Tinker v Des Moine [1969]