The First Amendment at the Schoolhouse Gate: Recent Supreme Court Decisions Every School Leader Should Know
March 16, 2026
In recent years, the boundaries of the First Amendment in public schools have become one of the most actively litigated areas of education law. From student speech on social media to the rights of employees and the role of religion in school settings, the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) has issued a series of decisions that are reshaping how constitutional protections operate within the school environment. These rulings serve as a reminder that while public schools remain unique forums—tasked with maintaining order, protecting students, and fulfilling their educational mission—they are also government actors bound by constitutional limits. For school leaders and boards of education, understanding how the Court is redefining the balance between institutional authority and individual rights is no longer academic—it is essential.
In June 2025, SCOTUS issued a decision addressing parental rights to “opt out” of portions of elementary school curriculum. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522 (2025), parents challenged a Maryland school district’s inclusion of LGBTQ-themed books in its instructional program. The district initially allowed parents to opt their children out of this portion of the curriculum but later rescinded that policy and required student participation. The parents objected, asserting that exposure to LGBTQ-themed books conflicted with their religious beliefs. They filed suit alleging that the district’s elimination of the opt-out option violated their right to Freedom of Expression. According to the parents, requiring participation in objectionable curriculum without an opt-out mechanism infringed upon those protections. In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS sided with the parents, holding that the school district must permit families to opt their children out of challenged instructional content.[1]
In a separate June 2025 decision, SCOTUS declined to review a lower court decision in C.M. and S.M. o/b/o L.M. v. Middleborough, 605 U.S. __ (2025). The case arose from a Massachusetts student who was prohibited from wearing a shirt displaying the phrase “There Are Only Two Genders”. After school officials barred the shirt, the student wore a modified version with the word “Censored” over the word “Two”, which the school also banned. The student filed suit, alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the ban, holding that the shirts demeaned non-binary students. In support of his claim, the student relied on SCOTUS’ landmark student speech decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969), which remains the governing precedent on student expression in public schools. Under Tinker, school may restrict student speech only when it would “materially disrupt classwork or involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.” Id., at 513.
Although SCOTUS declined to hear the C.M. case – effectively leaving the First Circuit’s ruling in place – Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. The Justices emphasized that Tinker remains binding precedent and argued that SCOTUS should have reviewed and overturned the lower court’s decision. The Justices further asserted that SCOTUS must “reaffirm the bedrock principle that a school may not engage in viewpoint discrimination when it regulates student speech” and reiterated a “demanding” standard when evaluating whether a risk of material disruption justifies restrictions on student expression.
In 2021, SCOTUS addressed the limits of school authority over student speech occurring outside of school in Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L., 594 U.S. 180 (2021). The case involved a high school cheerleader who posted messages on social media criticizing both the cheerleading team and the school after she was not selected for the varsity squad. The posts included profanity and were made off-campus and outside school hours. After the student was suspended from the cheerleading team as a result of the posts, she filed suit alleging that the discipline violated her First Amendment rights. SCOTUS agreed, holding that the school’s actions were unconstitutional because the speech occurred off-campus. SCOTUS emphasized that off-campus speech is generally entitled to greater constitutional protection than on-campus expression. Because the posts were neither threatening nor harassing, nor did they cause a substantial disruption to school operations, the Court concluded that the school lacked sufficient justification to discipline the student.
The issue of First Amendment rights in schools has not only been addressed at the SCOTUS level, but also in the federal courts of appeals. In 2025, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Indiana) decided E.D. by Duell v. Noblesville Sch. Dist., 151 F.4th 907 (7th Cir. 2025). The case involved a pro-life student club’s request for approval to distribute flyers stating “Pro-Life Students, It’s Time to Meet Up!” and displaying images of young people holding signs reading “Defund Planned Parenthood.” Under the school’s student handbook, administrators would approve a club flyer only if it included the club’s name, meeting time, date, and location, and did not contain political or disruptive content. Multiple administrators rejected the proposed flyers, after which E.D. filed suit, alleging that the rejection of the flyers and the student’s subsequent discipline violated his First Amendment rights as well as the Equal Access Act.
The District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled in favor of the school district, and that decision was affirmed by the Seventh Circuit. In reaching its conclusion, the court reasoned that the school’s restrictions on speech were reasonable and viewpoint neutral —that is, they did not target a particular side of an issue. Rather, the court found that the policy applied evenhandedly to all student clubs.
Taken together, these cases illustrate the ongoing need for schools to balance their interest in maintaining an orderly educational environment with students’ First Amendment rights. In general, schools may regulate student speech when it materially and substantially disrupts the school environment; is lewd, vulgar, indecent, or plainly offensive; or promotes illegal drug use. At the same time, schools must distinguish these circumstances from situations involving student speech occurring off campus, such as on social media, where courts have recognized greater constitutional protection.
[1] Please note that New Jersey permits parental opt-outs for certain curriculum topics in accordance with state law. The Mahmoud decision does not expand the statutory opt-outs permitted in New Jersey.