Craig Keefe v. Beth Adams, 840 F.3d 523

Background

Craig Keefe, a student in Central Lakes College (CLC) Associate Degree Nursing Program, posted offensive comments on his public Facebook page directed at classmates; two students complained and provided printouts to faculty.
Connie Frisch (Director of Nursing) met Keefe with Dean Beth Adams, read excerpts of the posts aloud (Keefe later admitted authorship), and removed him from the Nursing Program for "behavior unbecoming of the profession" and "transgression of professional boundaries." Keefe could remain at CLC and transfer credits; he appealed and was denied.
Keefe sued CLC administrators for violations of his First Amendment free-speech rights and Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process rights; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants and this appeal followed.
Key facts: posts referenced classmates and clinical settings, included a violent medical threat reference, and at least one classmate stated she could not function in the same clinical space with Keefe.
School relied on its Nursing Program Handbook and the American Nurses Association Code of Ethics (which students acknowledged) as the basis for dismissal; Keefe argued the speech was off-campus, non-academic, and protected.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether enforcing a professional Code of Ethics in a public professional program violates the First Amendment	Keefe: public college may not punish off-campus, non-academic speech except for unprotected categories	Defs: curriculum-based, viewpoint-neutral professional standards are legitimate; speech reflecting noncompliance may justify academic consequences	Court: Affirmed — enforcing professional ethical standards in the nursing curriculum is permissible; First Amendment did not bar removal
Whether off-campus Facebook posts are categorically immune from academic discipline	Keefe: off-campus online speech cannot be punished by college unless unprotected	Defs: off-campus speech can demonstrate lack of professionalism affecting program and patient safety; may be regulated when reasonably related to pedagogical concerns	Court: Rejected categorical rule; off-campus speech may justify academic consequences if related to legitimate pedagogical concerns and impact program safety
Whether Keefe's removal violated substantive due process (arbitrary/capricious)	Keefe: removal was arbitrary and should be judicially reviewed on merits	Defs: dismissal was an academic judgment within faculty discretion and not conscience-shocking	Held: No substantive due process violation; dismissal was a reasoned academic decision not beyond pale of reasoned academic decision-making
Whether Keefe received adequate procedural due process before removal	Keefe: lacked adequate pre-removal notice (didn't know specific posts/rules) and inadequate hearing	Defs: Keefe had an informal pre-removal meeting, opportunity to respond, and appeal rights—sufficient under Horowitz/Loudermill	Held: Procedural due process satisfied—pre-removal meeting, notice of concerns, and opportunity to respond plus appeal were adequate (court characterizes protections as flexible)

Key Cases Cited

Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) (schools may restrict school‑sponsored student speech if reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns)
Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978) (academic dismissals require less stringent procedural protections; courts defer to academic judgments)
Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, 474 U.S. 214 (1985) (courts should show deference to academic decisions and not second‑guess academic judgments)
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (disciplinary suspensions require oral/written notice and opportunity to respond)
Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property and liberty interests guide due process scope) [note: Roth cited by doctrine though not extensively discussed]
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due process is flexible; balancing test for required procedures)
Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (student speech may be regulated if it would materially disrupt school activities)
Oyama v. Univ. of Hawaii, 813 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2015) (upholding enforcement of professional standards in a certification program)
Keeton v. Anderson‑Wiley, 664 F.3d 865 (11th Cir. 2011) (permissible to enforce professional ethics as part of curriculum)
Ward v. Polite, 667 F.3d 727 (6th Cir. 2012) (upholding curricular limits tied to professional standards)
United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) (Court resists creation of new categories of unprotected speech)