Student Free Speech Rights: What They Can and Cannot Say in Public Schools

Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Students and teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” This declaration from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 forms the foundation of student free speech law in America.

The Court made it clear that public schools cannot operate as “enclaves of totalitarianism” where students are merely “closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate.”

That said, schools must educate students in a safe and orderly environment. This creates tension between a student’s right to personal expression and a school’s need to maintain discipline and fulfill its educational mission.

The Foundation: Tinker and “Substantial Disruption”

All modern analysis of student free speech starts with the 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. This case established the foundational rule that protects student expression unless school officials can meet a specific and high burden of proof.

The Tinker Case

In December 1965, a small group of students in Des Moines, Iowa, decided to protest the Vietnam War. Thirteen-year-old Mary Beth Tinker, her 15-year-old brother John, and 16-year-old Christopher Eckhardt planned to wear black armbands to school to mourn the dead and show support for a Christmas truce.

School principals learned of the planned protest and created a preemptive ban targeting the armbands. The policy stated that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it. Refusal would result in suspension.

On December 16, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were promptly suspended. John Tinker was suspended the following day. The students, represented by the ACLU of Iowa, sued the school district.

The Supreme Court sided with the students in a 7-2 decision. Justice Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion. He found that the students’ act of wearing armbands was a “silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance.”

Because it did not involve disruptive actions or spoken words, it was “akin to ‘pure speech,'” a form of expression that lies at the heart of the First Amendment. The Court found no evidence that the armbands had caused any disruption, interfered with schoolwork, or intruded upon the rights of other students.

The “Substantial Disruption” Test

The Tinker ruling created the primary legal standard for evaluating student speech in public schools: the “substantial disruption” test. This test dictates that school officials cannot censor or punish student expression unless they can demonstrate that the speech would “materially and substantially interfere” with appropriate discipline and school operations.

A critical component of this standard is that mere fear of disturbance is not enough. Justice Fortas wrote that “undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.”

This establishes a high bar for school administrators. They cannot restrict speech based on speculation or a simple desire to avoid the “discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.” They must have a factual basis to reasonably forecast a significant disruption.

The Court also highlighted viewpoint discrimination. The Des Moines school district had not banned all symbols of political or controversial significance. It had singled out the black armbands expressing opposition to the Vietnam War.

This targeted suppression of a particular viewpoint, without evidence of disruption, was crucial in the Court’s decision. Schools cannot silence speech simply because they disagree with the message.

Tinker’s Legacy

The Tinker decision affirmed that students are “persons” under the Constitution. Public schools cannot be authoritarian environments shielded from the “marketplace of ideas.”

The ruling has served as the legal foundation for protecting various forms of student political speech for decades. Citing Tinker, courts have successfully defended the right of students to wear anti-abortion armbands, pro-LGBTQ t-shirts, and clothing critical of political figures.

The case established a reactive standard, placing the burden on the school to justify censorship with concrete evidence of interference. Student expression is prioritized until it is proven to be unacceptably disruptive.

When Schools Can Restrict Speech

While Tinker established strong protection for student speech, its authority is not limitless. In the decades following, the Supreme Court heard cases that carved out important exceptions. These cases grant schools more authority to regulate specific categories of speech.

These cases did not overturn Tinker. They created a more complex legal framework where the level of protection depends heavily on content and context.

Lewd and Offensive Speech: Fraser

In 1983, Matthew Fraser, a high school senior in Bethel, Washington, delivered a speech at a mandatory school assembly to nominate a fellow student for student government. His speech was filled with what the Court later described as “an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor.”

The speech provoked a strong reaction from the audience of approximately 600 students. Some hooted and yelled, while others appeared bewildered and embarrassed. School officials suspended Fraser for three days, citing a school rule against “obscene, profane language or gestures.”

The Supreme Court upheld the suspension in Bethel School District v. Fraser. The Court ruled that schools have the authority to prohibit and punish speech that is “lewd,” “vulgar,” “indecent,” and “plainly offensive.”

It explicitly distinguished this case from Tinker, noting that the “marked distinction between the political ‘message’ of the armbands in Tinker and the sexual content of respondent’s speech in this case” was critical.

The Court reasoned that the fundamental role of schools is to “inculcate the habits and manners of civility” and to teach “the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior.” Society’s interest in protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive language outweighed the student’s right to express himself in that manner within a school-sponsored setting.

This case established that while political speech receives the highest level of protection under Tinker, sexually explicit and offensively lewd speech receives much lower protection. Schools can regulate it to maintain a proper educational environment.

School-Sponsored Speech: Hazelwood

Two years after Fraser, the Court further narrowed student speech rights in the context of school-sponsored activities. In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the dispute centered on a student newspaper, the Spectrum, at Hazelwood East High School in Missouri.

The paper was produced as part of a journalism class. The school principal, Robert Reynolds, reviewed the page proofs for an upcoming issue and decided to remove two articles he found inappropriate.

One article discussed the experiences of three students with pregnancy. The other discussed the impact of divorce on students. Although the students’ names were changed in the pregnancy article, the principal was concerned their identities could still be discerned. He also felt the divorce article’s references to parents’ conduct were inappropriate for a school publication.

The Supreme Court sided with the school district. The ruling established that educators can exercise editorial control over the style and content of “school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.”

This standard applies to activities that the public might reasonably perceive as bearing the school’s official endorsement or “imprimatur,” such as school newspapers, yearbooks, and theatrical productions.

The Hazelwood decision grants schools broad authority to censor student speech in these contexts for various reasons. This includes content that is “ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immature audiences.”

This ruling marked a significant shift from the student-centric Tinker standard. Where Tinker requires schools to react to proven disruption, Hazelwood gives them proactive power to prevent speech from being published in the first place. It prioritizes the school’s educational mission over student expression in school-sponsored forums.

Pro-Drug Speech: Morse v. Frederick

The Court created another specific exception to Tinker in the 2007 case of Morse v. Frederick. The case originated in Juneau, Alaska, during a school-supervised event where students were allowed to leave class to watch the Olympic Torch Relay pass by on a public street.

As the television cameras passed, high school senior Joseph Frederick and his friends unfurled a 14-foot banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” The principal, Deborah Morse, confiscated the banner and suspended Frederick for 10 days, citing the school’s policy against promoting illegal drug use.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the school’s actions were constitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. He ruled that schools can “restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.”

The Court reasoned that the school’s mission to discourage drug use was a compelling interest that justified the restriction. It determined that Frederick’s banner, though “cryptic,” could reasonably be interpreted as advocating for marijuana use. Such speech ran contrary to the school’s “important, indeed, perhaps compelling” interest in deterring drug use among students.

This decision carved out a narrow, content-specific exception for pro-drug messages. Schools can suppress them even without a showing of substantial disruption.

Off-Campus and Social Media Speech: Mahanoy

The most recent major student speech case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., confronted the central question of the 21st century: how do the old rules apply in the age of social media?

The case involved Brandi Levy, a 14-year-old junior varsity cheerleader who failed to make the varsity squad. She posted a message to her private Snapchat story on a weekend, away from school property.

The post featured a photo of her and a friend with their middle fingers raised and the caption: “fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.” The post was seen by other students and shown to the cheerleading coaches, who suspended Levy from the JV team for a year for violating team rules.

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brandi Levy, finding that the school’s punishment violated her First Amendment rights. The Court explicitly stated that schools have a diminished interest in regulating student speech that occurs off campus.

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, outlined three features of off-campus speech that strongly weigh against school regulation:

Parental Responsibility: Off-campus speech, particularly outside of school hours, generally falls within the zone of parental, not school, responsibility.

Concerns of 24/7 Regulation: If schools could regulate all off-campus speech, it would mean students’ expression would be subject to school oversight 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Protecting Unpopular Speech: The Court emphasized that schools, as “nurseries of democracy,” have an interest in protecting even unpopular student expression, especially when it occurs off campus.

The Court did not establish a complete ban on schools regulating off-campus speech. It acknowledged that a school’s regulatory interests remain significant in certain circumstances, such as:

• Cases involving serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals
• Threats aimed at teachers or other students
• Failure to follow rules concerning lessons, writing papers, computer use, or participation in other online school activities
• Breaches of school security devices

The Mahanoy decision reflects the Court’s attempt to adapt a legal framework based on physical location to a digital world where speech is location-agnostic. By declining to draw a bright line at the school’s physical border and instead offering a multifactor analysis, the Court signaled that future legal battles will focus less on where speech occurred and more on the nexus between the speech and the school’s legitimate interest in preventing substantial disruption or protecting the rights of others.

Key Supreme Court Cases Summary

Student Speech in Practice

The legal principles established by the Supreme Court play out in the hallways, classrooms, and online spaces of schools every day. Understanding how these standards apply to specific, common situations is key for students, parents, and educators.

The law creates a clear hierarchy: the most protected speech is non-disruptive, political expression initiated by a student, while the least protected is lewd or school-sponsored speech that administrators deem inappropriate.

Clothing and Dress Codes

A student’s choice of clothing is a common form of expression and a frequent source of conflict. Under the Tinker standard, students in public schools generally have the right to wear clothing that expresses political or social views.

This includes items like “Make America Great Again” apparel, pro-LGBTQ+ t-shirts, or anti-war armbands. A school’s disagreement with the message, or the fact that it might be controversial, is not a sufficient reason to ban it unless officials can reasonably forecast a substantial disruption.

The key distinction is between viewpoint-based rules and content-neutral rules.

Content-Neutral Rules: Schools can implement dress codes that apply to everyone equally, regardless of the message. For example, a rule banning all hats, a policy requiring school uniforms, or a rule prohibiting any t-shirt with text on it are generally permissible because they are not aimed at suppressing a particular message.

Viewpoint-Based Rules: Schools cannot selectively enforce rules to silence specific viewpoints. For instance, a school cannot permit students to wear shirts supporting one political candidate while banning shirts supporting another. If a school allows messages on clothing, it must allow a wide range of messages, even those it finds disagreeable.

There are exceptions. Schools can prohibit clothing with messages that are lewd, vulgar, or plainly offensive under the Fraser standard. They can also restrict messages that promote illegal drug use under Morse.

Dress codes must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. They cannot be based on gender stereotypes, such as requiring girls to wear skirts and boys to wear pants. All students, including transgender and gender-nonconforming students, must be allowed to wear clothing that is consistent with their gender identity.

Protests and Walkouts

Students retain the right to organize and engage in protest. They can plan peaceful, orderly demonstrations before or after school hours and can distribute flyers or circulate petitions, provided they do so in a way that does not interrupt class time.

Schools can enforce reasonable “time, place, and manner” restrictions on these activities to prevent disruption to the educational environment.

However, participating in a student walkout during school hours is different. Because state laws require students to attend school, a walkout is an unexcused absence, and schools have the right to discipline students for it. The act of walking out is not constitutionally protected from standard disciplinary consequences for missing class.

The crucial constitutional protection here is viewpoint neutrality. A school cannot punish students more severely for participating in a walkout because of its political nature or because administrators disagree with the protest’s message.

The punishment for a politically motivated unexcused absence must be the same as for any other unexcused absence, such as skipping class or leaving for a non-approved appointment. Before participating in a walkout, students are advised to consult their school’s student handbook to understand the specific policies and consequences for unexcused absences.

Student Publications and School Activities

For speech that occurs in the context of school-sponsored activities, the Hazelwood standard provides school officials with significant control. This applies to official student newspapers, yearbooks, and school plays—activities that might be perceived as bearing the school’s endorsement.

Under this standard, a principal can act as an editor and censor content for a wide range of “legitimate pedagogical concerns,” such as if the material is poorly researched, biased, unsuitable for immature audiences, or inconsistent with the school’s educational mission.

However, there is a critical exception to this rule. If a school has, either “by policy or practice,” allowed a student publication to operate as a “public forum for student expression,” its authority to censor is greatly diminished.

In such cases, the more protective Tinker standard would likely apply, meaning the school could only censor content if it would cause a substantial disruption or invade the rights of others. This makes the established history and policy of a student publication a crucial factor for student journalists seeking to protect their editorial independence.

Speech That Crosses the Line

The First Amendment does not protect all forms of speech. Certain narrow categories of expression can be restricted by the government, including by public schools, because their potential for harm outweighs their social value.

The legal definitions for these categories are intentionally narrow to prevent them from being used to suppress merely offensive or unpopular ideas.

Bullying and Harassment

While the terms are often used broadly, legally actionable harassment in a school setting has a very specific definition. Under the standard set by the Supreme Court in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, student-on-student harassment must be so “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” that it “effectively bars the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit.”

This is a high legal bar to clear. The conduct must be more than “simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents.” A school cannot restrict speech simply because some students find it offensive, hurtful, or in “bad taste.”

The core purpose of this strict definition is to ensure that the “heckler’s veto”—where speech is silenced because of the listeners’ hostile reaction—is not allowed.

Many states and school districts have adopted anti-bullying policies that define prohibited conduct, often including cyberbullying. These policies can sometimes extend to off-campus electronic communication if it is shown to create a “hostile environment” or “substantially and materially disrupt student learning” at school.

However, these policies must still operate within the constitutional framework, meaning they cannot punish speech that does not rise to the level of severe and pervasive harassment or cause a substantial disruption.

True Threats

“True threats” are another category of speech not protected by the First Amendment. A true threat is a statement that communicates a “serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”

This is distinct from political hyperbole, jest, or angry venting. For example, a student saying “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” during a protest was deemed political hyperbole by the Supreme Court in Watts v. United States, not a true threat.

To prosecute someone for making a threat, the government must prove the speaker’s state of mind. In its 2023 decision in Counterman v. Colorado, the Supreme Court established that a “recklessness” standard is sufficient.

This means the speaker must have “consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence.”

In a school setting, administrators must carefully evaluate student expression that involves violent themes—whether in poems, drawings, social media posts, or verbal comments—to determine if it constitutes a genuine threat of violence or is merely a form of artistic or emotional expression.

The context of the speech, the reaction of those who heard or saw it, and whether it was conditional are all critical factors in this analysis.

Public vs. Private Schools

One of the most significant distinctions in student speech law is the difference between public and private schools. This difference is rooted in a core constitutional principle known as the “state action doctrine.”

The First Amendment, like most of the Bill of Rights, was written to restrict the power of the government. Public schools are considered government actors because they are funded and operated by state and local governments. Therefore, they are legally bound to uphold the First Amendment rights of their students.

Private schools, in contrast, are private organizations. They are not government actors, and as a result, they are generally not bound by the First Amendment. This means a private school can legally enforce rules regarding speech, dress codes, and publications that would be unconstitutional in a public school.

As one legal expert noted, private school students may effectively “shed their constitutional rights at the ‘sign here’ line on a contract.”

There are, however, some important exceptions where private school students may have speech protections:

State Laws: A few states have passed laws that extend free speech rights to students in private schools. The most well-known is California’s “Leonard Law,” which applies First Amendment standards to the state’s private, secular high schools and universities.

Contract Law: A private school’s own official documents—such as a student handbook, mission statement, or admissions materials—can sometimes create a legally binding contract with students and their families. If a school promises to uphold principles of free expression and academic freedom, some courts may hold the school to that promise, preventing it from acting arbitrarily.

Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws: Private schools that receive any federal funding must comply with federal laws that prohibit discrimination, such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (prohibiting race and national origin discrimination) and Title IX of the Education Amendments (prohibiting sex discrimination). These laws can impact a school’s ability to enforce discriminatory harassment policies but do not grant the full scope of First Amendment speech protections.

This public-private distinction creates a significant divergence in the educational experience. Public schools are constitutionally required to function as “nurseries of democracy,” where students are exposed to a “marketplace of ideas” and learn to engage with diverse and sometimes challenging viewpoints.

Private schools, on the other hand, have the legal freedom to prioritize other values—such as religious doctrine or a specific philosophical mission—over a broad commitment to free expression, potentially creating more ideologically uniform environments.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.