Mark Wynar v. Douglas County School District
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18056
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Landon Wynar, a Douglas High School sophomore, posted escalating MySpace instant messages from home threatening a school shooting on April 20, naming classmates, invoking Columbine/Virginia Tech, and describing weapons and ammunition he possessed.
- Worried friends shared printouts with a coach and principal; deputies interviewed Wynar, who admitted writing the messages but said they were a joke; he was suspended 10 days and later expelled for 90 days under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 392.4655 (threats).
- Wynar and his father sued the school district under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment and due process violations; Douglas County moved for summary judgment and prevailed in the district court.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the district, holding school officials did not violate Wynar’s First Amendment rights or procedural due process in disciplining him for threats that posed a reasonable risk of substantial disruption and invaded other students’ rights to be secure.
- The court applied Tinker’s framework to off-campus speech threatening school violence, finding the nexus and foreseeability to school were clear given the content, audience, and that the messages reached campus via concerned classmates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment: Can school discipline reach off-campus online threats? | Wynar: messages were off-campus speech entitled to full First Amendment protection; school overreached. | Douglas County: Tinker permits restriction of student speech (on- or off-campus) that reasonably forecasts substantial disruption or invades others’ rights. | Held: School action constitutional under Tinker; off-campus threats that foreseeably reach school and pose risk may be disciplined. |
| Application of Tinker: Were Wynar’s messages likely to cause substantial disruption? | Wynar: lack of prior disciplinary history and claimed joking context made disruption forecast unreasonable. | Douglas County: specificity of threats, named victims, set date, and admitted access to weapons made forecast reasonable. | Held: Reasonable for school to forecast substantial disruption; discipline justified. |
| Invasion of rights of others: Did speech unlawfully interfere with classmates’ rights? | Wynar: speech protected unless actually disruptive. | Douglas County: threats to whole student body and targeted students interfered with their right to be secure. | Held: Messages infringed other students’ rights; supports discipline. |
| Procedural due process: Were suspension/expulsion procedures adequate? | Wynar: school deviated from internal rules, didn’t provide evidence pre-hearing, and parents weren’t notified before questioning. | Douglas County: Wynar received constitutionally required notice, hearing, counsel opportunity; internal rule deviations don’t create federal due process violation. | Held: Due process satisfied for both 10-day suspension and 90-day expulsion under Mathews balancing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (student speech may be restricted when it reasonably forecasts substantial disruption or invades others’ rights)
- Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (schools may regulate lewd or indecent student speech)
- Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (schools may regulate school-sponsored speech)
- Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (speech promoting illegal drug use at school can be restricted; uncertainty at outer boundaries of school speech precedents)
- LaVine v. Blaine Sch. Dist., 257 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2001) (applied Tinker to off-campus poem brought to school; schools may act on credible threats)
- Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2008) (off-campus online speech reaching school may be regulated when foreseeably disruptive)
- Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schs., 652 F.3d 565 (4th Cir. 2011) (off-campus MySpace page disciplined where sufficient nexus to school existed)
- J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 915 (3d Cir. 2011) (assumed Tinker may apply to off-campus spoof profile; disruption standard not met)