63 F.4th 996
5th Cir.2023Background
- On Oct. 3, 2019 Bronson McClelland, a Katy High School starting quarterback, sent a three‑second Snapchat using a racial slur and an apparent threat to a student from an opposing school; the clip was recorded by the recipient and widely re‑circulated. KISD quickly announced discipline and removed him as team captain and suspended him.
- In Sept. 2020 a KISD police canine search of the school parking lot produced .04 g of a green leafy substance in a vehicle McClelland sometimes used; officers tested for marijuana (not potency) and charged him, he was suspended and placed in DAEP.
- The parties executed a September 29, 2020 settlement with a broad release and a KISD letter stating McClelland’s brother admitted possession; later, on McClelland’s reenrollment, an appeals panel reinstated the marijuana finding and DAEP placement, affecting his varsity eligibility.
- McClelland sued asserting § 1983 First Amendment claims (including compelled‑speech and retaliation), Monell municipal liability, overbreadth and void‑for‑vagueness challenges to the Athletic Code of Conduct (ACC), and procedural/substantive due process claims; state claims were also pled.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6): individual defendants entitled to qualified immunity for disciplining off‑campus speech (rights not clearly established); KISD Board not liable under Monell (no policymaker connection); overbreadth and vagueness/due‑process claims failed for lack of a protected property/liberty interest; state claims dismissed without prejudice.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for the same reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for disciplining off‑campus Snapchat speech (First Amendment) | McClelland: speech protected; officials violated clearly established rights (relying on Mahanoy) | Defendants: law on disciplining off‑campus social‑media speech was unsettled; reasonable officials could act as they did | Affirmed: qualified immunity; rights not clearly established; Court declined to decide constitutionality |
| Monell liability (KISD Board) | McClelland: ACC was board‑adopted or ratified/delegated policymaking that caused the violation | KISD: complaint lacks facts connecting the Board to adoption/ratification or delegation of policymaking authority | Affirmed: no Monell liability; plaintiff failed to plead policymaker action or ratification |
| Overbreadth challenge to Athletic Code of Conduct | McClelland: ACC’s broad off‑campus conduct rules chill protected speech of third parties | KISD: complaint shows only plaintiff’s own conduct; no factual showing of substantial overbreadth affecting third parties | Affirmed: overbreadth dismissed—no realistic danger to third‑party protected speech |
| Void‑for‑vagueness and procedural/substantive due process (marijuana discipline & DAEP) | McClelland: ACC/statutory standards vague; discipline imposed without proving usable quantity/intent/testing; deprivation of liberty/property interests | KISD: students lack a protected property/liberty interest in single‑year athletics or DAEP placement; pleadings fail to allege protected interest | Affirmed: dismissed—no protected property or liberty interest alleged, so due‑process and vagueness claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (students retain First Amendment rights at school; discipline permitted only for substantial disruption)
- Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L., 141 S. Ct. 2038 (off‑campus student speech generally receives strong protection; no bright‑line rule)
- Bell v. Itawamba Cty. Sch. Bd., 799 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. en banc applying Tinker to off‑campus speech directed at school community)
- Longoria ex rel. M.L. v. San Benito Indep. Consol. Sch. Dist., 942 F.3d 258 (5th Cir.: off‑campus speech law unsettled; qualified immunity at pleading stage)
- Porter v. Ascension Parish Sch. Bd., 393 F.3d 608 (5th Cir. applied Tinker to off‑campus sketch brought to school; qualified immunity analysis)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires an official policy by a final policymaker causing the constitutional violation)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading‑stage plausibility standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may decide qualified immunity prongs in either order)