Abstract
This essay argues that the 2021 U.S. Supreme Court case Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. protects off-campus college student journalism (if not published in a school-sponsored outlet) from school censorship and punishment—thanks to the majority opinion's reliance on in loco parentis principles. In short, Mahanoy made clear that K-12 students generally have diminished First Amendment rights on campus because parents have delegated to teachers and staff some of their supervisory authority. That reasoning applies with less force when students speak off campus, and it applies with no force if the speaker is a legal adult, as nearly all college students are. The consequences are farreaching because the lower courts, for more than a decade, have expanded the authority of colleges and universities to punish students for off-campus speech, while at the same time college student journalists have been playing an increasingly critical role in meeting the news needs of their communities. This essay begins by providing context about the major Supreme Court cases that have established how student expression is regulated. Then the essay discusses the facts and reasoning of Mahanoy, followed by the history of the in loco parentis doctrine and its application to public colleges and universities. All of which leads to the conclusion that Mahanoy, intentionally or not, through its use of in loco parentis principles, is highly protective of off-campus college student journalism.
Repository Citation
Leslie Klein and Jonathan Peters,
Regulating Off-Campus Student Expression: Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.: The Good News for College Student Journalists
, 21 First Amendment Law Review 40
(2023),
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_artchop/1608
Published online in First Amendment Law Review.