Loading...

Supreme Court Sides With Cursing Cheerleader Over Snapchat Post

June 23, 2021 by Dan McCue
Outside the U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo by Dan McCue)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a Pennsylvania school district violated the First Amendment by punishing a student over a vulgar social-media rant sent away from school grounds.

The vote was 8 to 1, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.

The underlying case was filed on behalf of Brandi Levy, a Pennsylvania high school cheerleader who was furious about being passed over for the varsity squad and sent a vivid Snapechat message about it to about 250 of her friends and followers.

Critical to today’s outcome was the fact she sent the message on a Saturday and from a convenience store where she and other teenagers like to hang out.

In the message, Levy and a friend are shown with their middle fingers raised, and, using much more colorful language, say “[to hell with] school,” “[to hell with] softball, [to hell with] cheer, and [to hell with] everything.”

Though one of the appeals of using Snapchat is that the messages are intended to vanish a short time after they are sent, one of Levy’s fellow students took a screenshot of the image and showed it to her mother, who happens to be a coach.

The school suspended Levy from cheerleading for a year, saying the punishment was needed to avoid chaos and maintain a “teamlike environment.”

Levy sued the school district, and ultimately scored a victory in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held the First Amendment did not allow public schools to punish students for speech outside school grounds, relying on a precedent from a different era.

The Supreme Court hadn’t taken up a student free speech case since 2007. In that case, it ultimately sided with a principal who had suspended a student for displaying a banner that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”

In this case, the justices looked all the way back to the Vietnam War-era and the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District for guidance.

In TInker, the court sided with students who wanted to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, explaining the students had not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

But disruptive speech, at least on school grounds, could be punished, the court added.

In dissent, Justice Thomas wrote, “The Court transparently takes a common-law approach to today’s decision. In effect, it states just one rule: Schools can regulate speech less often when that speech occurs off campus. It then identifies this case as an “example” and ‘leav[es] for future cases’ the job of developing this new common-law doctrine.

“But the Court’s foundation is untethered from anything stable, and courts (and schools) will almost certainly be at a loss as to what exactly the Court’s opinion today means,” he said.

Supreme Court

December 5, 2021
by Dan McCue
Dobbs Now Supreme Court’s Most Anticipated Decision In Years

WASHINGTON — It wasn’t even the top headline in The New York Times the day after the decision was announced.... Read More

WASHINGTON — It wasn’t even the top headline in The New York Times the day after the decision was announced. That distinction went to the death of former President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who had died at age 64 after suffering a heart attack at his ranch... Read More

Justices' Abortion Remarks: Is it Time to Overturn Roe?

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court heard arguments in which it was asked to overturn a nationwide right to abortion that has... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court heard arguments in which it was asked to overturn a nationwide right to abortion that has existed for nearly 50 years. The fate of the court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion throughout the United States and its 1992 ruling in... Read More

December 1, 2021
by Tom Ramstack
Supreme Court Case Hints at Change In Federal Agency Regulation Decisions

WASHINGTON — Conservative judges on the Supreme Court suggested this week during arguments in a multibillion-dollar lawsuit over Medicare drug... Read More

WASHINGTON — Conservative judges on the Supreme Court suggested this week during arguments in a multibillion-dollar lawsuit over Medicare drug reimbursement that now might be the time to overturn a decades-old guiding principle of administrative law. The issue in American Hospital Association v. Becerra is a... Read More

Justices Signal They'll OK New Abortion Limits, May Toss Roe

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Wednesday signaled it would uphold Mississippi's 15-week ban on abortion and... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Wednesday signaled it would uphold Mississippi's 15-week ban on abortion and may go much further to overturn the nationwide right to abortion that has existed for nearly 50 years. The fate of the court’s historic 1973 Roe... Read More

Abortion Rights at Stake in Historic Supreme Court Arguments

WASHINGTON (AP) — Abortion rights are on the line at the Supreme Court in historic arguments over the landmark ruling nearly 50... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — Abortion rights are on the line at the Supreme Court in historic arguments over the landmark ruling nearly 50 years ago that declared a nationwide right to end a pregnancy. The justices on Wednesday will weigh whether to uphold a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15... Read More

Supreme Court Set to Take Up All-or-Nothing Abortion Fight

WASHINGTON (AP) — Both sides are telling the Supreme Court there's no middle ground in Wednesday's showdown over abortion. The justices can... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — Both sides are telling the Supreme Court there's no middle ground in Wednesday's showdown over abortion. The justices can either reaffirm the constitutional right to an abortion or wipe it away altogether. Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that declared a nationwide right to abortion, is... Read More

News From The Well
Exit mobile version