Doninger v. Niehoff, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8441

Doninger, LMHS student, served on Student Council and as Junior Class Secretary; Jamfest (battle-of-the-bands) scheduled for April 28, 2007 and later moved; Doninger helped organize and sent a mass email from school computers about Jamfest cancellation, violating district email policy; Doninger posted a livejournal blog post criticizing central office and mentioning dismissal of Jamfest, using offensive language; Niehoff (principal) and Schwartz (superintendent) restricted Doninger’s candidacy for Senior Class Secretary based on the blog post; later, at a May 25 assembly, t-shirts supporting Doninger (Team Avery) were restricted, with Doninger not allowed to wear the shirts while she was a candidate, though she could wear other shirts; Doninger’s appeal challenged these actions under First Amendment and related state-law theories; district court granted partial summary judgment to Defendants on blog-post claim and denied others, and the Second Circuit granted partial affirmance/reversal and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Doninger’s off-campus blog speech could be restricted under Tinker framework.	Doninger argues off-campus speech directly connected to school affairs is protected.	Officials acted under reasonable, not clearly established, basis.	Right not clearly established; qualified immunity applies.
Whether prohibiting Doninger from running for Senior Class Secretary due to blog post violated First Amendment.	Doninger asserts First Amendment right to political participation not to be punished for off-campus speech.	Discipline reasonable given disruption potential; not clearly established.	Qualified immunity protected; no clearly established right violated.
Whether prohibiting Doninger from displaying a Team Avery t-shirt at the assembly violated First Amendment.	T-shirt display constitutes protected student speech.	Disruption potential justified restriction under Tinker/Morse/Hazelwood framework.	Defendants entitled to qualified immunity; reasonable mistake.
Whether Monell liability was properly dismissed and Equal Protection claim resolved.	Monell claim should proceed; selective-enforcement theory should be viable.	No proper Monell claim; no selective-enforcement violation shown.	Monell claim dismissed; Equal Protection claim affirmed; state claims dismissed without prejudice.

Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (U.S. Supreme Court 1969) (students retain First Amendment rights in school context; disruption standard for discipline)
Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (schools may regulate lewd or indecent student speech)
Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (U.S. Supreme Court 1988) (schools may regulate school-sponsored expressive activities for pedagogy)
Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (schools may restrict speech promoting illegal drug use)
Wisniewski v. Board of Education, 494 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2007) (off-campus student speech can be restricted if it foreseeably disrupts school)
Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41, 527 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2008) (off-campus blog/post linked to school event could be regulated; precedent from Doninger II)
Doninger v. Niehoff, 594 F. Supp. 2d 211, 594 F. Supp. 2d 211 (D. Conn. 2009) (district court ruling on qualified immunity and First Amendment claims)
Lowery v. Euverard, 497 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 2007) (illustrative case on disruption and student speech)