Podcasts about mahanoy area school district

Is the free speech conversation too simplistic?  Peter Ives thinks so. He is the author of “Rethinking Free Speech,” a new book that seeks to provide a more nuanced analysis of the free speech debate within various domains, from government to campus to social media. Ives is a professor of political science at the University of Winnipeg. He researches and writes on the politics of “global English," bridging the disciplines of language policy, political theory, and the influential ideas of Antonio Gramsci. Enjoying our podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org. Read the transcript. Timestamps:  00:00 Intro 02:25 The Harper's Letter 05:18 Neil Young vs. Joe Rogan 08:15 Free speech culture 09:53 John Stuart Mill 12:53 Alexander Meiklejohn 17:05 Ives's critique of Jacob Mchangama's “History of Free Speech” book 17:53 Ives's definition of free speech 19:38 First Amendment vs. Canadian Charter of Rights 21:25 Hate speech 25:22 Canadian Charter and Canadian universities 34:19 White supremacy and hate speech 40:14 Speech-action distinction 46:04 Free speech absolutism 48:49 Marketplace of ideas 01:05:40 Solutions for better public discourse 01:13:02 Outro  Show notes: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate” Harper's Magazine (2020) “On Liberty” John Stuart Mill (1859) “Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media” Jacob Mchangama (2022) Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021) Canadian Criminal Code (1985) Bill C-63 - An Act to enact the Online Harms Act (2024) McKinney v. University of Guelph (1990) “When is speech violence?” The New York Times (2017) Section 230 (Communications Decency Act of 1996)

If you enjoyed my very first blog, Underneath Their Robes (2004-2006)—which I wrote under a pseudonym while working as a federal prosecutor, pretending to be a female associate in Biglaw obsessed with federal judges and fashion—then you'll enjoy this latest podcast episode. How many podcasts combine analysis of Supreme Court oral arguments with discussion of pumps versus cowboy boots versus Mary Janes? (For the record, my guest made the first reference to shoes; I didn't go there unprompted.)My latest guest is—of course—the inimitable Lisa Blatt, chair of the Supreme Court and appellate practice at Williams & Connolly, the legendary litigation firm. Lisa needs no introduction to Original Jurisdiction devotees, so I'll mention just two distinctions. First, Lisa has argued 43 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, more than any other woman in history. Second, she has won 37 of those 43 cases (86 percent), which makes her one of the most consistently victorious SCOTUS advocates. (Trivia question: is there a Supreme Court lawyer currently practicing who has argued that many cases before the high court with that high a win percentage?)In our ebullient and enjoyable interview, Lisa and I covered her special relationship with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for whom she clerked; how she rose to the top of the male-dominated Supreme Court bar, as a woman from Texas who “didn't go to a fancy law school”; how she developed her distinctive, famously unfiltered style of oral argument; and why she prefers cowboy boots over stiletto heels. I hope you have as much fun listening to this episode as Lisa and I had recording it.Show Notes:* Lisa Blatt bio, Williams & Connolly LLP* Reflections of a Lady Lawyer, Texas Law Review* Lisa S. Blatt: Cases argued, OyezPrefer reading to listening? A transcript of the entire episode appears below (although you really should listen to this one, since as is the case with her SCOTUS arguments, a transcript doesn't do Lisa justice).Two quick notes:* This transcript has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter meaning, e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning (although I've done less clean-up than usual to better preserve the flavor of our fabulous and freewheeling conversation).* Because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email. To view the entire post, simply click on "View entire message" in your email app.David Lat: Hello, and welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to by visiting davidlat.substack.com.You're listening to the seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Wednesday, November 30. My normal schedule is to post episodes every other Wednesday.I must confess, with all due respect to my past guests, that this episode might be the most fun one yet—and I owe it all to my guest. Lawyers are known for being risk-averse and many carry that over into their interviews, not wanting to say anything that might get them in trouble or rub someone the wrong way. That's definitely not true of my latest guest, who's known for her refreshing candor, whether you're chatting with her at a cocktail party or whether she's arguing before the United States Supreme Court.Lisa Blatt serves as Chair of Williams & Connolly's Supreme Court and appellate practice. She has argued 43 cases before the Supreme Court, more than any other woman in history. And she has prevailed in 37 of those 43 cases, giving her a win percentage of 86 percent—which has to be one of the highest around, at least among advocates who have argued before the Court as often as she has. She has won numerous awards, including Litigator of the Year from the American Lawyer in 2021.Lisa graduated from the University of Texas for both college and law school, summa cum laude both times. She clerked for then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the D.C. Circuit and then joined Williams & Connolly as an associate. After government service, at the Department of Energy and then the Office of the Solicitor General, where she worked for 13 years, Lisa returned to private practice, and in 2019, she came full circle by returning to Williams & Connolly.In our lively and wide-ranging conversation, Lisa and I discussed her unique relationship with the late Justice Ginsburg, for whom she clerked; her distinctive approach to Supreme Court oral advocacy, including her thoughts on trying humor with the justices; why she loves coaching debate; and why she thinks lawyers should not be passionate about their work.Without further ado, here's my interview of Lisa Blatt.DL: Lisa, thank you so much for joining me. I'm honored to have you on the podcast.Lisa Blatt: Well, thank you. I am honored to be here.DL: So if I had to guess where you're from based on meeting you at a cocktail party or hearing you argue before the Court, I would've guessed you're one of us, a New Yorker or a Northeasterner. But you're from Texas.LB: That's right. Both of my parents are from New York, and I grew up listening to the word “y'all” with a very thick New York accent, so everyone assumes I'm from New York. But no, I was born and raised in Texas, West Texas. I moved all over Texas, UT for undergrad and law school, and a lot of my personality is because I'm from Texas. And I think I'm on my 12th pair of cowboy boots?DL: Oh wow, okay!LB: I'm definitely a Texan. Part of the way I talk just is because my parents are both from New York.DL: That makes sense. And you have a kind of candor, although I guess Texans are pretty candid too, aren't they?LB: I don't think my candor comes from being from Texas! I don't know where that comes from, actually—no one in my family's like that.DL: Fair enough. So going to your upbringing in Texas, were there any hints that you might become a lawyer? I believe your parents were not lawyers.LB: Right. Dad was a software engineer, Mom a stay-home mom until she became a psychologist. But no, I think it was Thurgood Marshall, something about his story of Brown—I still get sort of teary when I think about it—something about his story of what he did in Brown v. Board of Education, being the lawyer, the advocate, not the justice. I just wanted to be a lawyer and I did debate, speech and debate starting maybe in seventh grade, I was always very into debate and just knew that I wanted to go to law school.DL: What events did you do in speech and debate?LB: Now it's embarrassing, but policy debate, which is all that fast talking, and I had to unlearn that many years later. But yeah, I did policy debate and I spent many years coaching debate, so I do love the art of advocacy and argumentation and trying to persuade someone.DL: I read in one of your profiles or interviews that you do coach or did coach debate. What was that like for you? It seems like you're very competitive about coaching debate?LB: No, actually that's not right. I'm very passionate about coaching debate, and I feel very strongly about coaching; it's what I would definitely do if I wasn't a lawyer, and I feel very passionate about helping children and kids. But I don't think it's about winning—and that's one of the things you have to teach kids, because they just want a trophy. So much in life when it comes to competition and jobs is arbitrary and capricious. One of the things that is so important for us, even adults, to understand is that some stuff is out of our control. If I can just teach one child how to stand up straight and feel good about an argument, then that's a home run. So I love everything about coaching debate.Also, the different perspective was just a huge thing, getting a bunch of kids in a room. I've taught middle-school debate and high-school debate, and I would say my favorite was middle school because they're not yet completely sold on their politics and ideology, and trying to just get them to open up about things like background checks or hate speech or should dodgeball be banned in schools because it's violent. Just anything, any topic—nowadays not all topics are as safe as others, but just lots of fun topics—which tastes better, Coke or Pepsi, anything that you can just form an argument about and how to organize your responses.Look how excited I get! Just the notion of being able to teach this in a way that is helpful, especially for women, and a lot of kids are very insecure at this age, and everything about trying to show them that they can be confident is just the best thing in the whole world.DL: Speech and debate was huge for me in that respect. I was a very nerdy kid, very insecure, but when I found something and I enjoyed it, and I was good at it, it was a big boost for my confidence. So your husband's a lawyer, you're a lawyer, I believe you have two kids—are either of them into speech and debate?LB: One's in law school, they both did debate, and the other one's just applying and now getting into law school. So we're going to be Blatt & Associates, or Blatt Blatt Blatt & Blatt. David, my husband, no debate, he finds it completely foreign, but both Daniel and Rachel did debate.DL: Excellent. So in doing my research, I did come across your wedding announcement when you and David got married. I'm curious: did you give much thought to the whole “take his name or not take his name” thing?LB: My maiden name is Schiavo, so I was so eager, I would've married anybody with any last name—as soon as somebody gave me a proposal, the answer was yes. So yes, I gave a lot of thought to taking his last name. Everyone mispronounced Schiavo. Actually its direct translation is “slave” in Italian. So I was happy to [take his name], I happen to love Blatt, which rhymes with your last name. It's so great.DL: It's very easy to spell. The only issue is one or two t's, but absolutely.LB: I'm actually fine with people—a lot of people still know me as Lisa Schiavo, and that's fine too—but I like being Lisa Blatt.DL: So as we talked about, you went to UT for college and law school, summa cum laude, did super well. And in some ways your first big break, I would say, was clerking for then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the D.C. Circuit. She was a great advocate and a great justice, but some say she wasn't warm and fuzzy with her clerks. But based on your great piece for the Texas Law Review—Reflections of a Lady Lawyer, which I'm going to put in the show notes—it sounds like you had a fairly close relationship with her?LB: Extremely, because I couldn't talk about the law with her! I'm being completely serious. Both my co-clerks were absolutely brilliant people from Harvard, on the Harvard Law Review, but that was just never going to go anywhere with me, to talk with her about the law. And so I'm probably one of her few clerks where it was shoes, jewelry, or clothes. I could not keep up with her, and we talked about fashion.When it was one of her huge anniversaries, it may have been her tenth year on the Court, twenty years on the bench, there were only two people, maybe three people who gave a toast, and I was one of them. And everyone talked about all her this, that, and the other thing, legal giant—and I spent the whole time roasting her about how skinny she was and all her jewelry and how she was an airhead, and she was cracking up. But she liked people who made her laugh, and I think I made her laugh.DL: That makes perfect sense. Look at [her late husband] Marty, look at [her good friend] Justice Scalia, and you. She was somewhat reserved or introverted, but she was drawn to people who could bring her out.LB: She's so hard to talk to about… I just couldn't talk to her about the law, and I was probably her least productive and least intelligent clerk. I remembered at this toast I did for her, I showed everyone the bench memo I did for her, it was a made-up thing, but she took only the caption—a draft opinion, I drafted the opinion, and she cut out the caption and used that for the opinion. It's true, it was a true story, but I did it on a big blowup poster and it was very funny. And I was also her first and last clerk from University of Texas, because she's such a snob, a super school snob….DL: That is true. Yeah….LB: Some of them are very, very specific about their Ivy League schools. But I loved her, and I do think it was a different relationship than she had with other clerks. Very different.DL: That makes perfect sense. You mentioned you both were into or bonded over fashion. Did you have similar or different styles?LB: No, she was so weird! She would just—come on, she wore all those caftans, at least back in when she was on the D.C. Circuit. Actually, now I think I dress like her because I love bright colors, and she definitely is where I got my “you know what, just wear it, own it.” Because she would show up in the strangest outfits and she just like looked very happy and I thought, “Wow, I wanna be her, she's beautiful.” She just loved life and travel and clothes. She definitely had a unique clothing style. I have a bunch of Mary Jane shoes that I have now after she passed away that I call my “RBG shoes.”DL: Oh, interesting…. Mary Janes, and cowboy boots. I would've thought you would go for some pumps, with three- or four-inch heels or something?LB: I'm so tall, I can't do it. No, I can't do heels, really. Cowboy boots are my thing.DL: Okay, fair enough. So turning to what you're most well-known for, arguing before the Supreme Court, I believe you have argued more Supreme Court cases than any woman in history. You noted that in your Texas Law Review piece, but I noticed that on your Williams and Connolly bio, it doesn't say that. Was that intentional? Do you want to be known as a Supreme Court advocate and not a female Supreme Court advocate?LB: Uh, no. How about a “female Jewish funny old-lady Supreme Court advocate”? No, I didn't even know that, David. I guess I could put [it] on my website. I don't know if anyone cares, so, no intentionality, no, no intentionality at all. I am very proud of the fact that I have more arguments than any woman in history, but I expect and hope to see other women pass me up very shortly, and I assume they will.DL: Do you happen to know who would be number two?LB: Well, I'm hoping it'll be Elizabeth Prelogar when she gets out of the SG's office.DL: That's right, that's right. She is racking up a lot of arguments.LB: And she's gloriously fantastic.DL: She's amazing.LB: She's amazing. But there are plenty of women out there. Well, [my partner] Sarah Harris, my right-hand person, she's far more talented than I am. Because I'm a little bit different than other people, I hope that my style doesn't necessarily rub off, but I hope that what rubs off on people is that somebody who didn't go to Yale or Harvard and who lacked a lot of self-confidence and wasn't really groomed for anything can just do well. I was incredibly insecure for so much of my professional life. And so I very much want to be a model for people.DL: And you write about that very eloquently in your Texas Law Review essay, which again, I really commend to people.I'm curious, your Williams & Connolly bio does note that you've argued 43 cases before the Court, and you've won 37. And as I recall, didn't you have a very long win streak before you notched that first loss?LB: Yeah, I was in the twenties, and Ted Olson gave me a case to lose. Yeah!DL: And let me ask—are you the “winningest” Supreme Court advocate with a certain number of arguments below your belt, like 25 or 30 or 40? Your win percentage is something like 90 percent, 88 percent, something like that.LB: I don't know….DL: One thing that's interesting about the Supreme Court, and I think you alluded to this earlier—you said so much of life is arbitrary and capricious and luck, and I would argue that despite your amazing talents as a Supreme Court litigator, so many Supreme Court cases are decided based on political or jurisprudential or other factors independent of the argument style. How important would you say briefing and argument are? I know this is a very vague question….LB: I'll break it down two ways. I disagree on the jurisprudential [point], except for abortion, guns, race, and religion. Everything else, I think, is open to grab, although you could make some points about statutory construction and administrative law—so you're increasingly more correct, but I still think that there are plenty of cases that are completely up for grabs on bankruptcy or even arbitration these days. Just random commercial cases or civil cases, I don't think it's that ideological. I will give you on—I don't think the Court needs to be briefed on how to rule in an abortion case, you're just completely right.Then there's oral argument, and whether that matters, and a lot of us who argue like to say it matters. At a minimum, I would say it matters in that you can lose a case at argument and you can go backwards. It's much harder to win a case at argument, but it's pretty easy to lose a lot of ground and lose a case at argument. And as you can tell now from the current format, the justices are just bursting with stamina in terms of how much they want to argue. It's like the cage has been opened, and I think they're going to go back to all-day argument soon.DL: Do you like the new approach?LB: How can you not?DL: I do, as a listener….LB: Because there's no time limit for them in the lightning round or whatever they call it—round robin, Justice Sotomayor just called it—and you can tell they're all sort of looking at each other like, “How much longer can I get away with?” The worst thing about the old style, where it was rapid fire and Justice Thomas was silent, is you just didn't learn that much about what their concerns were because it was so hard to get your point out, it was so hard to hear what every justice thinks. Now Justice Thomas is free and is so involved in argument, and all of them are, so you're just getting all of them now. The only problem with that is you're having nine conversations, so it's just turning into very long arguments. But the parties, who aren't lawyers, it's helpful for them to see the Court in action, so I like that, and for the public to see how hard they're working through the issues.DL: Absolutely—and I know this is a pending case, so we won't delve into the merits—but I would commend people to the argument in the Warhol case [Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith], which you and Roman Martinez and Yaira Dubin recently argued. It's a great case. It's super-interesting. The argument went on for quite some time, but you really do see the justices grappling with the issues in a very earnest and non-ideological way. It's a great argument.LB: One of the things I don't like talking about in argument is the law, so to me, those cases are the most fun, because you can talk about how the case matters in the real world, what it means to people, the public, the parties, and you're not so much talking about what some word in the U.S. Code means.DL: Exactly. That case covered everything from Darth Vader to Mondrian to The Jeffersons, and so it was a really fun case for folks to listen to.Turning to advocacy and your style of arguing before the Court, which we alluded to, Sarah Isgur of the Advisory Opinions podcast said that nobody should try to imitate Lisa Blatt, even though Sarah thinks you're an amazing advocate, nobody should try to imitate Lisa. And I agree that there's a sort of “don't try this at home, kids” quality to your argument. Would you say you have a distinct style of argument, and if so, how is it?LB: Well, it upsets me that so many people say don't try to emulate her because… it just upsets me to hear that. I'd like….DL: I would be flattered! I'd be like, I'm inimitable, I'm sui generis, you can't imitate me!LB: One of the things that you have to do when you're a Supreme Court advocate or any advocate is make sure everything you say you can back up. If somebody wants to say, “wait a minute, did you just say what you said,” you're going to go, “I absolutely said what I said, and I'll repeat it again,” and that has always been my philosophy.It's true I think some people think I maybe go right up to the edge, but I'm okay with that. Sometimes I say things and I'm like, oh my God, why did I say that? In the Romag case with Neal Katyal, that was definitely one of my more notable ones, where I said, “I think you might have to cut me off.” The Chief just looked at me like, “Are you crazy?”So I say things like that and I'm like, what? Or “I didn't go to a fancy law school,” and I'm like, well, why did I say that? So things like that, I'll regret saying, and you shouldn't say things like “I didn't go to a fancy law school,” so I would never recommend people repeat that. But I would think that lots of people make statements and arguments that they're like, I should have said it differently, so I don't know why I should be any different.What I guess is upsetting to me is my style, if it's unique, it's that I have this very strong view that truth is the best form of advocacy and for someone to have a different view—it's disturbing to me. Why would you not be incredibly honest and direct with the Court? That's all I have to say, and I think everyone would agree. I don't know whether it was Irv Gornstein or Michael Dreeben [who said it], but Paul Clement and I often talk about this, that oral argument is truth serum, so whatever someone tells you to do, what you think is really going to come out. I've tried to change my style, I would like to be different, but it's very hard for me to not be the way I am.DL: Well, let me give you some examples. I totally agree with you on the point about fidelity to the law and the facts, and I think that if someone were to compare you to Paul Clement, your former colleague in the SG's office, who would also be identified as one of the best Supreme Court litigators of all time….LB: Paul is the best. Let's just be clear.DL: Okay, well, fair enough….LB: Paul is magical in a completely different way. His magic is the way he engages with cases and doctrine, and I've never seen anything like itDL: What would you say is your special sauce or superpower?LB: I don't think I have one! I think, I'm not trying to be funny, but I think that they sometimes are laughing, like a fair amount of times are laughing. And so I don't know why that is, that they think it's funny, the things I say.DL: I think this is another aspect of your argument that I think people say don't try to imitate. Usually when people say, well, what are the rules of appellate or Supreme Court advocacy, they say, well, listen to the judges or justices, don't talk over them, really try to be responsive, [and] people also say generally don't try humor. But you do try humor, and it almost always works.LB: No, I don't try it, I don't try it! That's, no, you never should try humor! Absolutely. Never. Try. Humor. It would be a disaster. And can you imagine making a bad joke? That is the worst thing to do. Don't try humor. I think sometimes I say things…. I remember the first time I said something that got a hysterical laugh, it was an argument in the gas tank case [United States v. Flores-Montano], which is mentioned in the Guide for Counsel. Definitely considered, I know at least by Justice Ginsburg, it was one of her favorite arguments, and it was a glorious argument, but in the course of the argument, Justice Scalia said, I said something and he goes, “Is that public?” And I said, “I just made it public.” And they all just broke out laughing. And I'm like, I'm not trying to be funny, but sometimes that bluntness and directness, it's funny, but I'm not trying to be funny. Does that make sense?DL: Well, so when you made the funny quip in the Warhol argument about the airbrushed photos of Lisa Blatt, you were not trying to be funny? Because it was funny.LB: Nor was I trying to be funny when I said the court was “yakking.”DL: Yes. That was also great!LB: The minute that came out, I was like, ah, how do I take that back? And they thought it was hysterical, but I wasn't trying to be funny. Why would anybody say that? Intentionally?DL: Okay, okay, fair enough.LB: But, so, I think it's just quirky. I don't, maybe, I don't know what the word is. I don't know.DL: When people say, don't try to imitate you, I don't think they're saying anything about your fidelity to the facts or the law or the record. I think you and Paul are pretty much toe to toe on that. But you have very different styles. He's conversational and you are conversational, but you're much more… lively, no offense to Paul, you're more sort of… in your face, I guess? I don't know how to put it….LB: Oh, I don't know what I think of that. Paul is definitely just more eloquent and elegant and intellectual, and I'm just more, let's talk, let's roll up our sleeves.DL: And I think that would be your superpower. I think you have a way to just cut to the heart of the case, in a way, and to also play out the consequences. I know that we're deciding cases on the law, precedent, not policy, blah blah blah, but I think you're really great at unfolding [consequences]. I love the line you had in the B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District case about the cursing cheerleader, where you're saying near the end in your rebuttal, like, “judges, justices, don't do this!” in terms of setting forth a bad rule.LB: I said, “please don't do this to courts,” or “please don't do this to schools.” Yes, I said “please.” Okay. The minute I said “please,” it's like, I would highly recommend never saying, in any oral argument, “please.” But it did come out that way.DL: It was great!LB: Maybe it's just refreshing because nobody says “please.” Or I referred to North Korea and Russia. And so, but trust me, I am not trying to be entertaining because I strongly think that that is a disastrous move. You should never try to be that or try to be—you just can only be yourself.DL: Yes.LB: And so what you see at argument, I think with a lot of people is just someone's true self. And maybe it's because I didn't go to a fancy law school.DL: You mentioned in your Texas Law Review piece that it took you a while to learn to be yourself, that you tried on a couple of styles before settling on your current one?LB: Absolutely. Yes. That's why I feel the modeling and supporting younger people are extremely important. But how are you supposed to know this in your thirties? I didn't have the confidence and I hated everything about myself, so, yeah, I thought I would look at other, I guess, women and men and want to be like them. Maureen Mahoney, one of the best all-time advocates, everything about her is to die for. I couldn't be her if my life depended on it. And it was very hard for me to just accept the fact that I was never going to be that kind of lawyer or just always be a little different and not ever feel comfortable like in a suit, and just really…. I'm sure a lot of people feel this way, where they don't feel like they belong. This is not some great revelation. And so the sooner you can accept your weaknesses and lean into your strengths, the better off you are. So the more I can try to tell people that wherever that leads you, the better. It just took me a while, probably late thirties, early forties.DL: What were some of the styles you tried on before settling into your current one?LB: I grew up in the eighties, seventies and eighties. It was the suits, the, like, really uncomfortable suits, pantyhose, all that stuff, like uncomfortable shoes, not bright colors, or not speaking up, or worrying about how it comes out. I think the biggest thing that a lot of people won't do is admit they don't understand something. And I do that all the time at the meeting, I'm like, I have no idea what you're talking about, I literally have no clue what you just said. And a lot of people would never do that. And I think I sat through so many meetings where I would just go, I have no idea what those people are talking about. And now I'll say it and maybe people think I'm dumb, but I don't care. I'd rather—I'm positive that there's probably someone in the room that didn't follow it either.DL: Yes, exactly. I think that's so true.LB: But you know what? Shame and humiliation drive so many people and the way they conduct themselves, and the sooner you can sort of laugh at yourself, the better off the world would be.DL: That's very true, very true. I'm curious, over your 40-plus arguments, is there a win that you're most proud of? You have won a lot of really interesting cases, but is there one, maybe one that we haven't heard of or have not heard as much about?LB: Yes, and it'll be probably, you know, a lot of people will get mad at this, and please don't hate me on social media, but the [Adoptive Couple v.] Baby Girl case.DL: Ah yes….LB: With the Adoptive Couple [case] that I did with Paul, it just took, you know, like two years into my life and it was just a long, long struggle. And so I am proud that we won that case. It was just involved, a child, a family, and so it was just, to me, a meaningful case. It was also, you know, definitely one of my more memorable oral arguments.DL: I remember that case. I re-listened to that one recently, and this was a case that was interpreting the Indian Child Welfare Act, or ICWA, which is now back before the Court. And you just had a really powerful line in there where you said something like, “Look, we're talking about children, we're not talking about property or something.” You had a really resonant line in that argument.LB: Yeah, so I think in that case, I think it's fair to say that I know this from inside sources that, you know, you could see that case in two ways: it was one about the law and one about the facts. Then you can take it from there, and I chose to argue the case about the facts. I think the ICWA case now before the Court is very much about the law.DL: Interesting.LB: It's just so—some cases are more about the facts than the law.DL: I think you won that case on the facts as well. There were a lot of facts, I think, that were not great for the other side.LB: It was a 5-4 case. It was just tough, and the argument was very tough. It was also just very meaningful for me because I did it with Paul who was, you know, such an inspiration, and I basically give Paul credit for my entire career. So it was just a huge deal to me to have him up there arguing with me.I also blame Paul because I was really restrained in the whole beginning of the argument and it looked like we were losing. And Paul is like, you know, you gotta keep, keep it under control. And right before I went up for rebuttal, I said, “Can I just let loose?” And he said, “Yeah, just do it.” So I don't know if he remembers it that way, but I always say, Paul told me just to let loose, so that's what I did.DL: I would say another one of your superpowers is you really bring it in the rebuttal. Rebuttal is sometimes kind of an afterthought, but your rebuttal in that case, your rebuttal in the BL v. Mahanoy Area School District Case….LB: No, Oklahoma [Carpenter v. Murphy] was the worst.DL: What do you mean by the worst?LB: Well, because I basically said, this will stimulate you, and then repeated about rapists and molesters and murderers. It was, it was epic. And then everybody blamed me for going hysterical, and then everything I predicted happened in Oklahoma [after McGirt v. Oklahoma, which addressed the same issue after the Court deadlocked in Carpenter]. But yeah, no, the Oklahoma rebuttal was definitely one that was probably a little over the top.DL: Well look, sometimes you go a little over the top, but I think you also just bring a—I know you don't like this word as applied to argument—but I do think people would say you're a passionate advocate, or you're….LB: Ugh!!!DL: I know, I know, I've read your pieces saying don't use the P word, save it for your, save it for your hobbies, or…LB: Save it for sex.DL: Ha!LB: I'm not a big fan of “passion.” Do you really want a passionate surgeon? No.DL: Well, I guess maybe….LB: I just want someone who's good. Do you want a passionate architect? No. Do you want a passionate airline pilot? No. Just get me somebody who can get the job done and not mess up my face, or my house, or my plumbing. I mean, just get the job done. I do not want a passionate professional, period.DL: Okay, so well…..LB: I would say I'm extremely high-energy.DL: Yes, yes. And I think you just have a sort of sincerity, I think, [so] that nobody feels they're ever getting a snow job from you. It's like very, very honest, very unfiltered. And I think that that candor, that uber-compliance with the duty of candor to the court, I think is very appreciated by the judges.LB: Again, think of a surgeon. Seriously. When you're out and under their knife, you need them doing a good job with whatever they're repairing. Your life is in their hands and you need to take care of them. And that is in addition to putting myself in the role of a mother, I also think of a surgeon. I mean, you do everything you can for your kids. And if you're a surgeon, you know you got a job to do and you just, you gotta get it done. And so, I don't like that word “passion.” It sounds like it interferes with judgment. That's why I don't like that word. And maybe I am passionate, but I don't like to be called that.DL: So what are you passionate about then? What do you like to do outside of work? I see you, the listeners can't, but we're on Zoom, I see you're wearing a Peloton sweatshirt. Are you passionate about exercise? I know you mentioned you're not passionate about cooking or baking because you tried that on and that didn't work. So what do you like to do when you're not arguing before the Court?LB: I love to play with my dog, I love to exercise, I love music, and I love children.DL: Okay. Those are all worthy interests.So this is the lightning round, [since] I see our time is almost elapsed. Let me ask you my final four questions, which are standardized for all guests.The first is, what do you like the least about the law? And that can either be the practice of law or it can be law as that system that governs all of us.LB: The stereotypical male ego.DL: Fair enough. That is a good point and a very concise one. What would you be if you were not a lawyer?LB: Debate coach.DL: Oh, there are a lot of similarities there.LB: I would coach. I would be involved with children in some way, teacher, coaching, whatever I could do with kids.DL: Wonderful, wonderful.LB: I think everything that you think is different about me as an advocate is why I really come alive with children, because they're so not used to adults that are normal. They're so used to adults kind of doing weird stuff with kids and they're like, they just flip out when an adult is like, just tells it to them straight. They just, there's some way, just so much fun. I love kids.DL: Well, it's funny, I think in your Texas piece you had a line about how, well, the kids know that you're different from the other parents because….LB: I swear with them. I can't tell you how much I love kids. I mean, I love dogs too, but I love children.DL: Oh, that's great. Well, I'm sure that if you ever retire from Supreme Court advocacy, I'm sure a school or debate camp would love to have you.Question number three, how much sleep do you get each night?LB: I sleep all the time, in the middle of the day, in the morning, I just sleep. I love to sleep, so I don't know, seven, eight hours. I would sleep for 12 if I could. I really like to sleep.DL: I am so glad to hear that.LB: Naps are the best.DL: I agree with you on that. I have a great ability to nap. Unfortunately, not everyone does, and some people have trouble sleeping, but it sounds like you're not one of them.LB: I've had trouble since the pandemic. I've had trouble sleeping, but I still, then I'll just sleep in the daytime. But I do like to sleep, so I definitely get enough sleep.DL: Oh, good, good. And I guess my final question: any words of wisdom, especially for listeners who look at your life and career and say, I want to be Lisa Blatt?LB: Maybe it's two things that are similar. The hardest lessons are how to deal with failure, and you just can't let failure define you. It is inevitable. Setbacks are so inevitable, and so is embarrassment, shame, and humiliation. And so the sooner you can adapt to that, the better. Jeff Wall once gave me the best advice of my entire life: with every door that closes, the window opens. And the other thing that Jeff Wall told me that was sort of foundational was when you look back upon your life, will you be thinking about how much money you have or how many arguments you have? And the answer is no. You're not gonna be thinking, if I'd only had one more argument or gotten one more award, you'll be thinking about the relationships you've made along the way, that those are the most important. Now, I remember telling this to Judge [Pamela] Harris, who's an amazing Fourth Circuit judge, and she said, “No, that's not what I'll be thinking about, I'll be thinking about what good I did for the world.” And I was like, “Ah, I can't win for losing!” So if you don't think about your relationships, at least think about what good you did for the world.And then the other piece of advice, which is along [the lines of] don't let failure define you, is just don't let other people's view of you define you just because someone doesn't respect you. Okay. You need to define who you are for yourself, and it is so easy to see yourself through other people's eyes, and it's just something you need to fight if you're insecure, like I was.DL: Again, very, very true, and I think you have managed to succeed and define yourself in a really unique way. And again, I have such admiration for you, Lisa, and I'm so grateful to have you on the show.LB: Yeah. And David, let me just plug you. You're a god and my family loves you. My husband loves you. We always read you. You're just amazing. My husband follows everything you say about Yale.DL: Well, there's a lot to say, and I think I'm gonna be hopping on a train soon to head up there for an event. But, again, thank you so much….LB: We are avid, avid followers of you.DL: Thank you again, Lisa. This was so much fun and best of luck in the arguments you have stacked up for the rest of this Term.LB: Thank you. And thank you for inviting me!DL: Thanks again to Lisa for joining me. I'm always inspired by people like Lisa who can reach the pinnacle of the legal profession while remaining true to themselves. She's a unique advocate and personality, and I mean that in the very best sense.As always, thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers, for tuning in. If you'd like to connect with me, you can email me at davidlat@substack.com, and you can find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe to Original Jurisdiction. Since this podcast is relatively new, please help spread the word by telling your friends about it. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, as is most of the newsletter content, but it is made possible by your paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast should appear two weeks from now, on or about Wednesday, December 28. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects.Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; and (3) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

On June 23rd, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L., a case which concerned whether the First Amendment prohibits public school officials from regulating off-campus student speech. Justice Breyer authored the majority opinion in the 8-1 decision, holding that “while public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome the student's interest in free expression in this case.” Justice Thomas offered the lone dissent in the decision. Joining me today to discuss this decision is Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law at Widener University Commonwealth Law School.

Three judges from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals joined host Jeffrey Rosen for a live panel held on September 17, Constitution Day, the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. They shared an inside look into some of their rulings that then became blockbuster Supreme Court cases. Judge Cheryl Ann Krause discussed her ruling in the case involving a cheerleader who was punished for a Snapchat, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. Judge Stephanos Bibas spoke on his decision in one of the major Trump campaign challenges to the 2020 election results, Donald Trump for President, Inc v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And Judge Marjorie Rendell shared insight into her decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the case spurred by the city barring Catholic Social Services (CSS) from placing children in foster homes because CSS refused to allow same-sex couples to be foster parents. The judges also reflected on their work more broadly, their efforts to find compromise among colleagues with differing opinions, and their important roles in American government. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Three judges from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals joined host Jeffrey Rosen for a live panel held on September 17, Constitution Day, the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. They shared an inside look into some of their rulings that then became blockbuster Supreme Court cases. Judge Cheryl Ann Krause discussed her ruling in the case involving a cheerleader who was punished for a Snapchat, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. Judge Stephanos Bibas spoke on his decision in one of the major Trump campaign challenges to the 2020 election results, Donald Trump for President, Inc v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And Judge Marjorie Rendell shared insight into her decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the case spurred by the city barring Catholic Social Services (CSS) from placing children in foster homes because CSS refused to allow same-sex couples to be foster parents. The judges also reflected on their work more broadly, their efforts to find compromise among colleagues with differing opinions, and their important roles in American government. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

A cheerleader's vulgar post on social media lands her in trouble with the school, but judicial precedent from the 1960s and the First Amendment protects her right to free speech.

A cheerleader's vulgar post on social media lands her in trouble with the school, but judicial precedent from the 1960s and the First Amendment protects her right to free speech

Do your rights end at the schoolhouse door? In a special episode of Fabric of History, Mary and Gary are joined by Nick Capodice, co-host and Education Outreach Producer for Civics 101, the podcast refresher course on the basics of how democracy works. What do the decisions of cases like Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. teach us about the relationship between students' rights and schools' ability to enforce protocol? And what exactly is the difference between on-campus and off-campus speech?Listening Guide:https://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/school-students-and-speech-a-constitution-day-special-with-civics-101s-nick-capodice-viewing-guide/

Mahanoy Area School District v B L (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the ability of schools to regulate student speech made off-campus, such as speech made on social media. The case challenged past interpretation of Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District and Bethel School District v Fraser, previous Supreme Court decisions related to student speech which may be disruptive to the educational environment, in light of online communications. The case centered on Brandi Levy, identified as B L in pleadings, a student at Mahanoy Area High School in Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania, who posted an angry, profane Snapchat message from an off-campus location after she failed to make the school's varsity cheerleading squad. Though sent to a private circle of friends and deleted later, the message was shown to school staff, and B L was suspended from cheerleading the next year under the school's policy relating to social media. B L's parents filed suit on her behalf in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, arguing that the school district had unconstitutionally punished her for speech made completely outside of the school that did not pose a risk of disruption. The District Court held in B L's favor and that the school's policy was beyond its disciplinary reach under Tinker. On appeal to the Third Circuit, a three-judge panel unanimously affirmed this ruling, but the majority opinion stated that Tinker did not extend to any off-campus speech, while a dissenting opinion believed this conclusion was overly broad. The Third Circuit's decision created a circuit split for the Supreme Court to resolve. The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit's ruling in regard to B L's case in an 8–1 decision in June 2021, though overruled the Third Circuit's opinion related to off-campus speech relative to Tinker. The Court affirmed that through Tinker, schools may have a valid interest to regulate student speech off-campus that is disruptive, but did not define when this regulation can occur, leaving this open for lower courts in future litigation. The Court ruled specifically for B L that the school's interests to prevent disruption under Tinker were not sufficient to overcome her First Amendment rights. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

https://bit.ly/3yUm4l3 (View resources discussed during this episode, including available online courses.) Presenters: Sandra L. Jacques, Esq., LL.M., LEGALONE Supervisor of Legal Research & Content Development, and Rose Acerra, Past President & Legislative Chairperson for NJPTA. On June 23, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court provided clarification regarding students' off-campus 1st Amendment Free Speech Rights, when it rendered its Decision in the case of MAHANOY AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT v. B. L., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER FATHER, LEVY, ET AL., which has also come to be known publicly as “The Cheerleader Case”. This Podcast continues the discussion of the March 2021 LEGALONE Podcast addressing Student Free Speech Rights, by reviewing the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2021 Decision, and noting the change in legal standard from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals 2020 Decision in this case.

Mahanoy Area School District v B L (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the ability of schools to regulate student speech made off-campus, such as speech made on social media. The case challenged past interpretation of Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District and Bethel School District v Fraser, previous Supreme Court decisions related to student speech which may be disruptive to the educational environment, in light of online communications. The case centered on Brandi Levy, identified as B L in pleadings, a student at Mahanoy Area High School in Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania, who posted an angry, profane Snapchat message from an off-campus location after she failed to make the school's varsity cheerleading squad. Though sent to a private circle of friends and deleted later, the message was shown to school staff, and B L was suspended from cheerleading the next year under the school's policy relating to social media. B L's parents filed suit on her behalf in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, arguing that the school district had unconstitutionally punished her for speech made completely outside of the school that did not pose a risk of disruption. The District Court held in B L's favor and that the school's policy was beyond its disciplinary reach under Tinker. On appeal to the Third Circuit, a three-judge panel unanimously affirmed this ruling, but the majority opinion stated that Tinker did not extend to any off-campus speech, while a dissenting opinion believed this conclusion was overly broad. The Third Circuit's decision created a circuit split for the Supreme Court to resolve. The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit's ruling in regard to B L's case in an 8–1 decision in June 2021, though overruled the Third Circuit's opinion related to off-campus speech relative to Tinker. The Court affirmed that through Tinker, schools may have a valid interest to regulate student speech off-campus that is disruptive, but did not define when this regulation can occur, leaving this open for lower courts in future litigation. The Court ruled specifically for B L that the school's interests to prevent disruption under Tinker were not sufficient to overcome her First Amendment rights. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Join Michael Nitti, Superintendent of the Ewing Schools, and Marc Zitomer education attorney with the firm Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LLP, as they look at the role and responsibility of schools in addressing off-campus student behavior in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (18:23)

Michael Allman and Ty Humes join T.J. O'Hara, host of Deconstructed, to discuss their experiences serving on the San Dieguito Union High School District's Board of Trustees. Mr. Allman is an elected Trustee while Mr. Humes was unanimously approved to serve as a provisional appointee to complete the term of a Trustee who had resigned. Within months of the start of their service, both were challenged by the San Dieguito Faculty Association (a.k.a. the Teachers' Union) – Mr. Allman by recall and Mr. Humes by removal and a call for a special election. It appears that both men had the audacity to cast independent votes that did not align with the Teachers' Union's wishes. While disappointing, their stories are not unique within California school districts. In fact, Mr. Humes was appointed to replace another Trustee who resigned “for personal reasons” after being threatened with a recall by the Teachers' Union just as Mr. Allman has been. In addition, the Superintendent of Schools resigned during Mr. Humes' first meeting and another elected Trustee is being investigated by the Union to determine whether she meets the district's residency requirements (after being in office since 2014). The removal of Mr. Humes was positioned as “procedurally based.” The Teachers' Union supposedly opposed him because he had not been duly elected by the people even though provisional appointments have been the entire county's standard operating procedure for years. Mr. Humes describes the vetting process that was taken by the board and the unanimity with which it selected him from among seven candidates. During his brief tenure, he was the first Black member to ever serve on the board of the wealthy and predominantly White school district. He observes the irony of the district's posting of BLM posters while having no problem with dismissing its first Black Trustee on procedural grounds. Conversely, Mr. Allman was duly elected by the people. His recall is based on violating the district's Code of Conduct for purportedly disparaging others during board meetings and on social media. Given a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court about a school district's right to control speech, one must wonder just how offensive the Teachers' Union finds Mr. Allman's selection of words (see MAHANOY AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT v. B. L., a minor, by and through her father, LEVY, ET AL.). Mr. Allman describes what he has said and why he has said it. He also provides evidence of why his voting record may be the real reason for the attempted recall. The two gentlemen also discuss the “math” issue that hovers in the background. The San Dieguito Union High School District is approximately $14 million in debt. Both men have senior executive experience and think that the district would be best served by pursuing a path of fiscal responsibility. The special election and recall process the Teachers' Union is pursuing will cost $600,000-$1,000,000+ in funds the district could have applied to teachers' salaries, student supplies, etc. In the final segment, Mr. Allman and Mr. Humes share their positions on some of the more critical challenges confronting the district such as the pandemic-related issues (i.e., online vs. in class education; whether masks should be required, etc.). Listen to the discussion and decide whether the best interests of the students and parents are being protected or whether other political interests are carrying the day. (Note: This program was prerecorded on July 26, 2021. It references CDC mask guidelines that were in place at the time. Those guidelines changed on July 27, 2021, and may change again in the future.)

When Brandi Levy shared a profanity-laced snap after failing to make the varsity cheer team, she probably wasn't envisioning the start of a dispute that would ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court.  But after the school district suspended Brandi from cheer, her parents  filed a lawsuit that would culminate in one of the most important free speech decisions of the last several decades. Join Lisa, Elizabeth, and Miriam to discuss off-campus speech and when school districts can discipline students for expression that takes place at home, over the weekend, and away from school grounds. Although First Amendment conflicts are nuanced and fact-specific, we will lay out the general contours of discipline for on and off campus speech and also address how the Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. decision affects the changing landscape of student rights. Previous seasons of this podcast, including Season One, are available at https://www.walterhav.com/podcasts-index/ We practice law, including special education law, at Walter Haverfield in Cleveland, Ohio, and we welcome your suggestions and comments. Please check us out at:   https://www.walterhav.com/professional/elizabeth-l-bolduc/ https://www.walterhav.com/professional/lisa-h-woloszynek/ https://www.walterhav.com/professional/miriam-m-pearlmutter/

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." “The Friends of Voltaire” by S. G. Tallentyre (Evelyn Beatrice Hall) This quote has been the cry of free speech advocates for decades. But how is society to treat those, especially minors, who violate the standards of speech considered acceptable in public? In the case Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the question is, what are the legitimate actions of public schools in disciplining the vulgar speech of students. In its opinion, the Supreme Court illegitimately applied the First Amendment to state actors, but that is nothing new. By far the most interesting part of the opinion is the role the justices believe schools have in parenting children. And you may be surprised by what the lone dissenter in this case said regarding the subject.

For the first time since 2007, the United States Supreme Court has weighed-in on student free speech rights under the First Amendment. In Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the high court addressed for the first time the parameters and limits for schools' regulation of student off-campus speech. In this episode, host Devon Lincoln breaks down the Supreme Court's decision and its implications for California school districts with Lozano Smith student speech experts Mike Smith and Sloan Simmons. Show Notes & References 1:58 - Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) 393 U.S. 503 4:00 – Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) 478 U.S. 675 5:58 – Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al. (1988) 484 U.S. 260 8:05 – Statutory framework in Education Code (Ed. Code §§ 48907, 48950)   9:34 – Morse v. Frederick (2007) 551 U.S. 393 11:58 – Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (June 23, 2021) 594 U.S. ___ 19:56 – School district limitations on regulating off-campus speech 24:35 – Types of behavior subject to regulation under B.L. 33:02 – Impact of B.L. in California 39:27 – Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995) 515 U.S. 646 40:43 – T.V. v. Smith-Green Community School Corporation (N.D. Ind. 2011) 807 F.Supp.2d 767 43:31 – J.C. ex rel. R.C. v. Beverly Hills Unified School District (C.D. Cal. 2010) 711 F.Supp.2d 1094 (Client News Brief 53 - December 2009) 46:25 – Wynar v. Douglas County School Dist. (9th Cir. 2013) 728 F.3d 1062 (Client News Brief 59 - September 2013) 48:48 – C.R. v. Eugene School District 4J (9th Cir., Sept. 1, 2016) 835 F.3d 1142 (Client News Brief 65 - September 2016) 51:34 – Shen v. Albany Unified School District (9th Cir. 2016) 835 F.3d 1142 (Client News Brief 87 - December 2017) 55:36 – McNeil v. Sherwood School District 88J (9th Cir. 2019) 918 F.3d 700 (Client News Brief 30 - June 2019)   Lozano Smith's COVID-19 Resources can be found here. For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.

This episode we're scooting over to the SCOTUS side of things to discuss the latest and greatest hot button cases with lawyer and legal educator, Natasha Axelrod. Touching on Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L and NCAA v. Alston et al, this episode provides the scoop on what the cases were all about, where they landed, and what the court's decisions mean for the future. Obvi we also give light to some essential ‘I have a stupid questions,' including defining what SCOTUS is, so even if you're a legal novice, this episode will get you up to speed. P.S. Ask us all your questions and give us all your feedback on IG @girlandthegovthepodcast or via email at girlandthegovthepodcast@gmail.com.Prima:https://www.prima.co/ Use code GIRLGOV for 15% offBrand Ambassador Sign Up Form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSelH0p5KWISaHaBI5-9nKSUItlY_eXiEmvsudpJIcRjKhfgyA/viewform

The opinions in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.'s are read by Dylan Moore and Jeff Murphy, FIRE Law Clerks from the University of Chicago Law School.  Held: “While public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome B.L.'s interest in free expression in this case.” Mr. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, at 1:07. Mr. Justice Alito concurring, at 20:05.  Mr. Justice Thomas dissenting, at 57:53. This opinion's citations have been edited down for ease of listening. For more information, visit our explanation. For more on Mahanoy, visit FIRE's First Amendment Library. For more episodes, visit thefire.org/outloud.

The United States Supreme Court recently handed down a victory for student speech with the 8-1 decisions in the Mahanoy Area School District v B.L. case. As the world communicates more and more through social media, this case sets some precedent in what can be considered protected under the First Amendment. To dig into the decision and the implications, we are joined in this episode by Professor Chad Flanders. Chad is a constitutional law professor and scholar of religion and the First Amendment.

On June 23, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. B.L., a high-school student, was disciplined for posting on Snapchat a vulgar message that was critical of the school's cheerleading team. By an 8-1 vote, the Court held that the discipline was unconstitutional. The Court concluded that a school has less authority to regulate students' off-campus speech than to regulate speech that occurs on-campus. The Court noted three reasons for its conclusion. First, where a student speaks off campus, it is generally the responsibility of parents, not school officials, to supervise students' conduct. Second, courts should be skeptical of off-campus regulation of speech, because allowing schools to regulate both on- and off-campus speech would subject all of a student's speech to potential school discipline. Third, since schools are the “nurseries of democracy,” they have an interest in protecting the freedom of speech and teaching respect for people's right to express messages over which there is disagreement. Applying those principles, the Court determined that the school could not discipline B.L. for her off-campus speech, which denigrated the school and its cheerleading team, but which did not substantially disrupt the operation of the school.Featuring:-- Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

Editor: In light of the June 23 Supreme Court of the United States ruling (Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.), I would like to revisit a case right here in Floresville which is almost identical. In 2018, some students brought Trump flags to pep rallies at Floresville High School and other students made uncomplimentary posts about it, including calling them the “future school shooters.” The Floresville Independent School District chose to view these posts as “free speech.” Shortly afterward, some LGBTQ students brought pride flags and paraphernalia to a different Floresville High School pep rally, and a student posted a...Article Link

This week, Ryan talks about the recent Supreme Court ruling in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. and discusses the extent to which schools can regulate student conduct under the First Amendment. Sarah talks about one school district's unique approach to summer school and how it is helping students recover after a year of pandemic learning.Don't just listen, join the conversation! Tweet us at @AcademicaMedia or with the hashtag #BigIdeasinEducation with questions or new topics you want to see discussed. Sources: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdfhttps://www.wbez.org/stories/after-a-year-of-pandemic-learning-a-different-kind-of-summer-school/ecc317f9-59ec-4a58-b0dc-8c4c4c60d1e1?utm_source=email&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Web-Share&player.ui=open Hosts: Ryan Kairalla (@ryankair); Sarah Boulos Fye (@readwithfye)Producer: Ross Ulysse

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.'s majority opinion is read by Dylan Moore, FIRE Law Clerk from the University of Chicago Law School.  A full reading of the concurrence and dissent in this case is forthcoming.  Held: “While public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome B.L.'s interest in free expression in this case.” Mr. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, at 00:53. This opinion's citations have been edited down for ease of listening. For more information, visit our explanation. For commentary from FIRE on this case, visit FIRE's Newsdesk. For more episodes, visit thefire.org/outloud.

De-Briefing the Law, Daily Update, June 24th, 2021 Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued 4 big decisions. In the first case, the justices side with a cheerleader who was suspended from her team for cursing outside of school. Next, the Court deals with property rights versus unions. Then, the Court rules on 4th Amendment rights when a police officer entered a man's garage after he played his music too loud and didn't pull over. Lastly, the Court dealt with separation of powers with the limitations on who could remove the director of the FHFA. The cases discussed: Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid Lange v. California Collins v. Yellen   For more comedic takes on the law, follow us: Twitter: https://twitter.com/comedianoflaw Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/comedian_of... Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/comedianoflaw We offer comedic Continuing Legal Education courses:  https://onlinecles.com Our Blog: https://onlinecles.com/blog/

This week, the United States Supreme Court vindicated the First Amendment rights of a high school cheerleader who was punished for a salty Snapchat she sent outside of school. It was a resounding victory for free speech advocates and the first time the Supreme Court has considered a high school free speech case since its disappointing 2007 ruling in Morse v. Frederick. On today's episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, we analyze the Supreme Court's ruling in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. with FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley and FIRE Legal Fellow David Hudson. Show notes: Court opinion: Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. Listen to an audio reading of the opinion via Free Speech Out Loud FIRE, NCAC, and CBLDF file brief in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., cheerleader Snapchat case before Supreme Court www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org Photo by Danna Singer/Provided by the ACLU

The Supreme Court recently released decisions from some of the most highly-anticipated cases of this term. Jess Bravin, who covers the Supreme Court for The Wall Street Journal, and Marcia Coyle, Chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal and contributor to the National Constitution Center's blog Constitution Daily, join host Jeffrey Rosen to recap those decisions and highlight the role, approach and legal philosophy of each individual justice in this blockbuster term. Marcia, Jess, and Jeff discuss cases including: Fulton v. City of Philadelphia in which the Court held that the refusal of Philadelphia to contract with Catholic Social Services (CSS) for the provision of foster care services unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Mahanoy Area School District in which the Court sided with a student whose initials are B.L., ruling that the school district's decision to suspend B.L. from the cheerleading team for posting to social media vulgar language and gestures critical of the school violates the First Amendment. California v. Texas in which the Court held that the plaintiffs in the case lack standing to challenge the Affordable Care Act's minimum essential coverage provision—essentially protecting the ACA from its latest challenge. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. Questions or comments available at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 183, in which I discuss the importance of the Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. US Supreme Court decision yesterday, which found that a high school's attempt to punish a student for using obscene language on her Snapchat violated the student's  (Brandi Levy's) First Amendment rights. Read the Supreme Court decision here. Read blog post about the decision here.  Interview with Avery and Lauren Doninger

There was a big win for student free speech at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. In today's pod, David and Sarah talk all about the long-awaited decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. BL, where the court ruled in favor of a high school cheerleader who was suspended from her team after posting a profanity-laden Snapchat. Our hosts discuss what Justice Stephen Breyer's ruling means for free speech for students going forward and how much of an impact on schools it will actually have. They then analyze Samuel Alito's concurrence and Clarence Thomas' lone “curmudgeonly” dissent. Plus, a quick dive into Lange v. California, the “hot pursuit” Supreme Court case that limits when and how police officers can enter a home without a warrant.   Show Notes -Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. -Lange v. California See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Kate and Leah recap four opinions: Lange v. California; Mahanoy Area School District v. BL; Collins v. Yellen; and Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.

The Supreme Court recently released decisions from some of the most highly-anticipated cases of this term. Jess Bravin, who covers the Supreme Court for The Wall Street Journal, and Marcia Coyle, chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal and contributor to the National Constitution Center's blog Constitution Daily, join host Jeffrey Rosen to recap those decisions and highlight the role, approach and legal philosophy of each individual justice in this blockbuster term. Marcia, Jess, and Jeff discuss cases including: Fulton v. City of Philadelphia in which the Court held that the refusal of Philadelphia to contract with Catholic Social Services (CSS) for the provision of foster care services unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Mahanoy Area School District in which the Court sided with a student whose initials are B.L., ruling that the school district's decision to suspend B.L. from the cheerleading team for posting to social media vulgar language and gestures critical of the school violates the First Amendment. California v. Texas in which the Court held that the plaintiffs in the case lack standing to challenge the Affordable Care Act's minimum essential coverage provision—essentially protecting the ACA from its latest challenge. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. Questions or comments available at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In this AD Insider podcast, we feature a segment from the AD Insider LIVE | Thursday 30, presented by Clell Wade Coaches Directory, Inc., we sat down with Jim Walsh, an Attorney and Shareholder at Walsh Gallegos Treviño Robinson & Kyle P.C.In this episode, we covered the following topics:Landmark Snapchat Supreme Court CaseTransgender Laws ExplainedLawsuit Protection for Coaches Materials discussed in this episode:Mahanoy Area School District vs. B.L. U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Confronting Anti-LGBTQI+ Harassment in SchoolsLaw Dawg Ed DailySupport the show (https://coachesinsider.com/sign-up/)

Anna Salvatore started High School SCOTUS as a way to explain the Supreme Court's work to high schoolers. After early success, the site has blossomed into a nationwide publication pulling in high school journalists from across the country – students like freshman Elise Spenner. Salvatore and Spenner join SCOTUStalk to discuss their work, what's next for High School SCOTUS, and their thoughts on this term's student speech case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Mackenzie Smith is back on Comedian of Law! She updates us on her run for public office as district judge. Joel tests her judicial skills on some new wacky cases such as the murder of an iguana!? Joel and Mackenzie also debrief recent Supreme Court cases. They discuss the weighty implications of the word "so," police officers taking bribes, and whether students can be disciplined for their speech and social media usage outside of school. In this episode, Joel and Mackenzie review the following Supreme Court cases: - Van Buren v. United States, discussing the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act and officer bribes - Denver Bible Church v. Polis, discussing church Covid policy and what cases should go before the Supreme Court  - Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L, discussing the First Amendment based on a teen cheerleader's Snapchat language that led to her being cut from her team - Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, discussing religious rights, discrimination, and foster care 

Today we have special guest Nick Fish, president of American Atheists! He recently attended a meeting with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Is this administration doing a better job representing the millions of non-believers in the country? Find out! In the first segment, we discuss Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the free speech case you may have heard about on The Daily. Andrew gives us a more complete breakdown and offers a prediction as to how the ruling will go! Links: Tinker v. Des Moines, Hazelwood Indep. School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, BL v. Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist., 964 F.3d 170, Mahanoy Area School District v. BL oral arguments, Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships EO

On April 28, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. The question before the court was whether Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 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. Michael Dimino, Professor of Law at Widener University Commonwealth Law School, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

During this episode, Amy Dickerson, Jackie Wernz, and Kendra Yoch discuss Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., recently argued in the US Supreme Court. While the case deals with the First Amendment, not Title IX, it may have implications for how schools deal with off-campus online speech that may be sexual harassment. 

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case that could determine public school's abilities to police student's speech off campus. The case began when a young woman named Brandi Levy sent out an curse-laden Snapchat expressing her frustration at not making the Varsity cheerleading squad, and was suspended from the JV team. Jeannie Suk Gersen, John H. Watson, Jr., Professor of Law at Harvard Law School & New Yorker contributing writer, joins us to discuss the case, known as Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L.—its first student-speech case in more than a decade. In this second part of a special Briefly season finale, Adam Hassanein and Professor Emily Buss (U. Chicago Law) discuss Mahanoy, how new technology has changed the speech landscape, and how the Supreme Court could transform students' right to speak their minds. Twitter @uchilrev | lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu | Music from bensound.com

In 2017, Brandi Levy, a junior-varsity cheerleader at Mahanoy Area High School, in Pennsylvania, was denied a spot on the school’s varsity squad. That weekend, off campus, Levy posted a furious, profanity-filled photo and message about the decision on Snapchat. A student who saw the message showed a screenshot to her mother—the cheer coach. Levy was barred from cheerleading for the rest of the year. The A.C.L.U. helped Levy’s parents file suit against the school in federal court, claiming that Brandi’s First Amendment right to free speech had been curtailed. Last week, four years after that pivotal snap, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. Jeannie Suk Gersen joins Dorothy Wickenden to discuss this contentious case and what it means for free speech in the digital age.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a case that could have profound implications for students and freedom of speech. At issue is whether public schools can discipline students over something they say off-campus. OSBA Chief Legal Counsel Sara Clark and Jennifer Hardin, OSBA's deputy director of legal services, are here to talk about the case -- Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. This episode is brought to you by Sedgwick, an OSBA endorsed partner. Learn how Sedgwick can help control the premiums your district pays for workers' compensation coverage at https://www.ohioschoolboards.org/workers-compensation.

On April 28, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., which presents the question whether, under Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. Sch. Dist., public high schools may discipline students for off-campus speech. B.L. was a high-school sophomore who had tried out unsuccessfully for the varsity cheerleading team, but was selected for the J.V. team instead. Upset, she Snapchatted a photo of herself raising her middle fingers and captioned the photo "F*** school f*** softball f*** cheer f*** everything." The school determined that her Snapchat violated school rules, and removed her from the J.V. team. Her parents sued on her behalf, claiming that the removal violated her First Amendment rights. Both the District Court and the Third Circuit ruled in B.L.'s favor.Joining us to discuss is Professor Michael Dimino, Professor of Law at Widener University Commonwealth Law School. Featuring: -- Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 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. DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Aug 28 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 1, 2020)Sep 21 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 1, 2020 to November 30, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.Sep 28 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 30, 2020.Oct 01 2020 | Brief amici curiae of Pennsylvania School Boards Association and Pennsylvania Principals Association filed.Oct 01 2020 | Brief amici curiae of National School Boards Association, et al. filed.Nov 30 2020 | Brief of respondents B.L., a minor, by and through her father Lawrence Levy and her mother Betty Lou Levy in opposition filed.Dec 14 2020 | Reply of petitioner Mahanoy Area School District filed.Dec 16 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.Jan 08 2021 | Petition GRANTED.Feb 22 2021 | Brief of petitioner Mahanoy Area School District filed.Feb 22 2021 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)Feb 24 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Cyberbullying Research Center, et al. filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National School Boards Association, et al. filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Massachusetts, et al. in support of neither party filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Nation Education Association in support of neither party filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Association of Pupil Services Administrators and Pennsylvania Association of Pupil Services Administrators filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Pennsylvania School Boards Association and Pennsylvania Principals Association filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amici curiae of First Amendment and Education Law Scholars filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Huntsville, Alabama City Board of Education, et al. filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice in support of neither party filed.Mar 12 2021 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, April 28, 2021.Mar 15 2021 | Record requested.Mar 24 2021 | Brief of respondent B.L., a minor, by and through her father Lawrence Levy and her mother Betty Lou Levy filed.Mar 26 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 29 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.Mar 30 2021 | CIRCULATEDMar 30 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Parents Defending Education filed. (Distributed)Mar 30 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Liberty Justice Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Life Legal Defense Foundation filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Alliance Defending Freedom and Christian Legal Society filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Independent Women's Law Center filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of College Athlete Advocates filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Law and Education Professors filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation and The Rutherford Institute filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The National Women's Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Jane Bambauer, Ashutosh Bhagwat, and Eugene Volokh filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of School Discipline Professors filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of States of Louisiana, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of First Liberty Institute filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Student School Board Members filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Advancement Project, Juvenile Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Student Press Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of VanHo Law filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Mary Beth Tinker & John Tinker filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of HISD Student Congress, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Teachers, School Administrators, and the National Council of Teachers of English filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. filed. (Distributed)Apr 05 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.Apr 16 2021 | Reply of petitioner Mahanoy Area School District filed. (Distributed)Apr 28 2021 | Argued. For petitioner: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D. C.; and Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: David D. Cole, of Washington, D. C.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

After a high school student with initials B.L. posted a snap on the social media app Snapchat complaining about sports and school, she was suspended from the cheerleading team. She sued the school for violating her First Amendment rights and appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court; the court heard arguments in the case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., this week, which could become the court’s first major ruling on student speech in decades. On this week’s episode, we recap the oral argument in the case, as our guests explain the arguments on both sides. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Will Creeley, Legal Director at Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE) who authored an amicus brief on behalf of B.L., and Francisco Negrón, Chief Legal Officer at the National School Boards Association who joined a brief on behalf of the school district. They discuss how the court might apply the leading precedent, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)—in which the court famously wrote that students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate at the schoolhouse gate,” but that schools could punish student speech if it substantially disrupts the educational process—to this case, and whether and to what extent schools can regulate student speech online. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

Daniel Ortner, attorney for Pacific Legal Foundation, joins the Dom Giordano Program to discuss an Amicus Brief he co-authored pertaining to a supreme court case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. As a high-school sophomore, B.L. was upset when she failed to make the varsity cheerleading team. While at the mall with friends, B.L. vented her frustrations by posting to snapchat a picture with the caption “F*** school, f*** softball, f*** cheer, f*** everything.” After a student took a screenshot and sent it to her mother, a team coach, who sent it up the chain, the school decided that B.L.'s private post had violated school rules, and suspended her from the junior-varsity cheerleading team. First, Giordano and Ortner debate whether or not the school should have any control of the speech of students while not on school grounds, with Giordano arguing that schools need to have some control to address cyber-bullying, in particular. Then, Giordano and Ortner discuss the idea of ‘snitch culture,' which Ortner says this case strongly reflects, as teen and tween students turn petty disagreements and sniping into an effort to destroy the reputation of an individual. Ortner notes that empowering school officials to punish students for such speech creates an incentive for students, parents, and staff to further engage in this informant-style behavior. (Photo by Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After a high school student with initials B.L. posted a snap on the social media app Snapchat complaining about sports and school, she was suspended from the cheerleading team. She sued the school for violating her First Amendment rights and appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court; the court heard arguments in the case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., this week, which could become the court’s first major ruling on student speech in decades. On this week’s episode, we recap the oral argument in the case, as our guests explain the arguments on both sides. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Will Creeley, Legal Director at Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE) who authored an amicus brief on behalf of B.L., and Francisco Negrón, Chief Legal Officer at the National School Boards Association who joined a brief on behalf of the school district. They discuss how the court might apply the leading precedent, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)—in which the court famously wrote that students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate at the schoolhouse gate,” but that schools could punish student speech if it substantially disrupts the educational process—to this case, and whether and to what extent schools can regulate student speech online. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

A case in which the Court will decide whether, consistent with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, public school officials may regulate off-campus student speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.

A case in which the Court will decide whether, consistent with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, public school officials may regulate off-campus student speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.

A case in which the Court will decide whether, consistent with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, public school officials may regulate off-campus student speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.

A case in which the Court held that the First Amendment limits but does not entirely prohibit regulation of off-campus student speech by public school officials.

Officials in North Carolina brace for impact on the verge of the release of new body camera footage. Cheerleader Brandi Levy of Pennsylvania is booted from the squad and takes her case up to the Supreme Court. Michigan Democrat House Representative Jewell Jones is arrested for multiple charges. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:• Officials in Elizabeth City North Carolina declare a state of emergency on the verge of releasing new body camera footage from an officer involved shooting.• Andrew Brown Jr. was shot and killed on April 21st but details have yet to be released.• North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper tweets and says Brown's death was “extremely concerning”.• Ben Crump, they attorney who helped the George Floyd family recover $27 million, appears to be representing the family and is set to meet with lawyers today.• Highschool cheerleader Brandi Levy was booted from the cheer squad after posting an inappropriate (according to school officials) Snapchat post.• Levy and her parents sued the school, and the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.• Scheduled for oral arguments in the case of Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., we review the court docket and the arguments proffered by the parties.• Democratic Representative Jewell Jones was arrested for driving under the influence.• Jones, a Michigan House Representative, threatened to call Governor Gretchen Whitmer is he was not released by the officers.• Review of the body camera footage that captured the interaction between Jones and the officers.• Your questions from Locals.com after each segment!LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: • https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/​NEW! EXISTENCE SYSTEMS ONLINE COURSE!• www.robertgruler.com/existence-systemsConnect with us:• Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​• Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprou...​• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​• Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq​• Robert Gruler Instagram:

On April 28, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District. In 2017, a Mahanoy student was kicked off the junior varsity cheerleading team after she posted a "snap" on Snapchat that said "fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything" while hanging out with a friend at a convenience store on a Saturday. Represented by the ACLU of PA, the student challenged the school's punishment and won four ensuing court decisions. In this episode, we hear from the student, Brandi Levy, along with ACLU-PA Legal Director Vic Walczak and Mary Beth Tinker, one of the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court's landmark case Tinker v. Des Moines. They talk about what's at stake in this case and why students should have the constitutionally protected right to express themselves. Oral arguments will be livestreamed on April 28 at 10am at this link: https://www.c-span.org/video/?510036-1/mahanoy-area-schools-district-v-bl-oral-argument Learn more about this case here: https://www.aclupa.org/en/cases/bl-v-mahanoy-area-school-district "Punished for a Snapchat: Why School Shouldn't Police Students' Speech Outside of School" https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/punished-for-a-snapchat-why-schools-shouldnt-police-students-speech-outside-of-school/

Ninth grader Brandi Levy was frustrated when she didn’t make her high school’s varsity cheerleading team so she posted an intemperate video about it on Snapchat to her 250 “friends.” Four years later, that video, which led to her suspension from the junior varsity cheer team, will take center stage at the United States Supreme Court.  Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. is a case that University of Florida Professor Frank LoMonte says will determine “the future of student free speech.” On today’s episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, we are joined by LoMonte, who also leads the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, and FIRE Program Officer Lindsie Rank to discuss the Mahanoy case, which could answer some important lingering questions about student speech rights off-campus and on social media. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the case on Wednesday, April 28. A decision is expected this summer. Show notes: Transcript “The future of student free speech comes down to a foul-mouthed Cheerleader,” by Frank LoMonte FIRE, NCAC, and CBLDF file brief in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., cheerleader Snapchat case before Supreme Court www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

On April 28, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. The case could shape the future of school students' free speech rights for years to come. Featuring a range of legal experts, we look at the history of the Court's First Amendment jurisprudence since the seminal case of Tinker v. Des Moines in 1969, and how the Court might chart a path forward in the digital age. Special thanks to our guests, Prof. Emily Gold Waldman, Prof. Jud Campbell, and the ACLU's Monique Gillum & Arianna Demas. Please note: this episode contains some explicit language.