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
Is David really arguing that a driver with a .24 BAC and fleeing from a police officer is NOT a danger to himself and others? I hope not, because that is a laughable position. Bad facts make bad law. Example Lange v. California If this was a high speed chase with a .24 BAC to a flight home or if it was misdemeanor DV on the lawn of a house and then a retreat inside a home this would have never made it in front of an appellate court. (BTW I've seen these cases and I've never seen David's shrubbery case) Despite the scoffing of David and Sarah, real officers in real cases will now have to stop and wonder whether they need a warrant before effecting an arrest despite already observing misdemeanor criminal conduct. And the price of being wrong increasingly results in being fired or sued. It's not a surprise many young officers are choosing to quit the force instead of being stuck in that Catch 22. And who can blame them.
Why has there been no discussion about the idea that this Angry Cheerleader (spoiled brat) does not have a right to be on the cheer squad? I would understand the upset if she were suspended from school. Then her right to education would be infringed. She was, in my mind justifiably, removed from a competitive position on a extracurricular activity.
I am assuming there are girls that would happily fill her spot on the JV squad and/or softball team. If the coaches believe her behavior to be detrimental to the team, why can't they make that call?
Maybe I am getting old, but if I would have behaved like this Angry Brat (I think is a more apt description), and rightly removed from the soccer team (sport I tried out for and earned a position at the coaches discretion) my parents would have marched my a$$ into the principles office to apologize and beg for my spot back.
Her free speech was not infringed, I think myself pretty absolutist in that regard. Her privilege to a spot on a competitive team, to which she has no right to be on, was justifiably taken away. This is all bonkers to me, as somebody who participated in competitive sports (high school and private).
What am I missing???