Free Speech 5: Restrictions on Student Speech on School Grounds

Adam Henerey was a high school student who decided to run for junior class president. Like all the other students seeking to run for student council office, he was required to sign a contract requiring all candidates to agree to obey all school rules, including the requirement that before distribution, all campaign materials had to be approved by the principal or assistant principal.

When the campaign began, Henerey obtained approval from the administration for his campaign slogan, “Adam Henerey, The Safe Choice.” Henerey became aware that as in previous years, the other candidates were handing out gum and candy. On the day of the election, in the school hallways, Henerey handed out condoms with stickers bearing his campaign slogan. Unfortunately, he hadn’t first obtained approval from the administration before he distributed the condoms.

While the ballots were being counted, a student complained to the school principal about Henery handing out condoms. The principal decided that Henerey should be disqualified from the student election for his failure to comply with the rule requiring students to get prior approval before distributing materials. Although Henerey received the majority of the ballots cast in the election, he was not allowed to take office. Henery appealed this decision.

When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case, it explained that although students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” (citing Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Com. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969)), the Constitution does not compel “teachers, parents, and elected school officials to surrender control of the American public school system to public school students” (citing Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 686 (1986)). See Henerey ex rel. Henerey v. City of St. Charles, 200 F.3d 1128, 1131 (8th Cir. 1999).  It further explained that the constitutional rights of public school students "are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings and a school need not tolerate speech that is inconsistent with its pedagogical mission, even though the government could not suppress that speech outside of the schoolhouse. See Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 266, (1988) (citing Bethel, 478 U.S. at 685). Id. It concluded that courts must analyze First Amendment violations alleged by students “in light of the special characteristics of the school environment” (quoting Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 266 (quoting Tinker, 393 U.S. 503 at 506). Id. 

The Court upheld the school’s policy, finding that school officials may restrict individual student expression that “is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns,” carries an implied imprimatur of the school, “would substantially interfere with the work of the school, or impinge upon the rights of other students.”