38 F.4th 1270
10th Cir.2022Background
- In Sept. 2019 C.G., a high‑school student, posted a private Snapchat story off campus showing friends in costume with the caption “Me and the boys bout to exterminate the Jews,” then removed it and apologized.
- A classmate screenshotted the post, her father called police (who found no threat), and parents in the community alerted school officials.
- CCHS suspended C.G. (initially five days, then extended to 21 days) and after an expulsion hearing the Superintendent and Board expelled him for one year under CCSD policies addressing verbal abuse, off‑campus conduct detrimental to welfare, intimidation/harassment, and threats to pupil safety.
- Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment (procedural and facial) violations against school officials and the District; the district court dismissed most claims.
- On appeal the Tenth Circuit applied the Supreme Court’s Mahanoy framework, held the complaint plausibly alleged a First Amendment violation for disciplining off‑campus social‑media speech, reversed dismissal of that claim and related as‑applied claims, and remanded several issues (qualified immunity, due process reconsideration, conspiracy).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regulation of off‑campus student speech under the First Amendment | Schools may not regulate off‑campus, non‑targeted social‑media speech; Mahanoy protects such speech | School may discipline because the post was hateful, spread to the school community, and reasonably forecasted substantial disruption | Tenth Circuit: complaint plausibly alleges First Amendment violation; dismissal reversed (Mahanoy controls; no adequate forecast or evidence of substantial disruption) |
| Qualified immunity for individual school officials | Officials should not get qualified immunity because law clearly prohibited disciplining off‑campus, non‑targeted speech | Officials claim gaps in case law and reasonable reliance on school authority | Remanded to district court to decide qualified immunity in first instance (issue not resolved below) |
| Facial overbreadth challenge to CCSD disciplinary policies | Policies permit discipline for off‑campus, non‑school‑connected speech and are overbroad | Policies are facially valid and regulate harassment/threats | Court declined to reach full facial overbreadth after ruling for plaintiff on as‑applied claim; some facial claims waived and those dismissals affirmed |
| Procedural due process for suspensions/expulsion (Goss/Mathews) | C.G. lacked meaningful pre‑suspension hearing and adequate process for extensions/expulsion | School provided required notice and hearing opportunities, including expulsion hearing | Reversed dismissal for initial 5‑day suspension (Goss) — alleged denial of meaningful opportunity to be heard survives; vacated/directed reconsideration under Mathews for extension and expulsion; remanded other immunity/process issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (school may restrict student speech only if it would substantially disrupt school or impinge others' rights)
- Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L., 141 S. Ct. 2038 (2021) (off‑campus social‑media speech has special protections; schools rarely stand in loco parentis off campus)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (short school suspensions require notice of charges and an opportunity to present student's side)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three‑factor test to determine required procedural protections)
- West v. Derby Unified Sch. Dist. No. 260, 206 F.3d 1358 (10th Cir. 2000) (deference to school expertise in certain on‑campus disciplinary contexts)
- Thompson v. Ragland, 23 F.4th 1252 (10th Cir. 2022) (clarified qualified immunity and limits on disciplining off‑campus student speech)