422 F.Supp.3d 353
D. Me.2019Background
- On Sept. 16, 2019, 15‑year‑old A.M. placed a sticky note on a girls’ bathroom mirror reading: “THERE’S A RAPIST IN OUR SCHOOL, AND YOU KNOW WHO IT IS.”
- Another student found the note quickly; other students later posted copycat notes; administrators reviewed camera footage and concluded A.M. authored the first note and interviewed over 40 students.
- School officials concluded A.M. violated the bullying policy, suspended her for three days, and warned of harsher future penalties; another male student ("Student 1") experienced ostracism and missed school.
- A.M. sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (and also raised Title IX), sought emergency relief, and the school agreed to delay enforcing the suspension pending the motion.
- After a hearing on a preliminary injunction, the court found A.M. likely to succeed on her First Amendment claim and granted a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.M.’s sticky note is protected speech | Note is political speech about sexual assault and school response, entitled to Tinker protection | Note was defamatory or otherwise unprotected (targeted Student 1) | Court: Likely protected; factual disputes prevent finding it defamatory at this stage |
| Whether school could regulate speech under Tinker because it caused substantial disruption | A.M.’s note did not materially or substantially disrupt school discipline | Note caused fear, large investigation, and disrupted administrators and students | Court: Disruption shown is limited and comparable to Tinker; not enough at prelim stage to justify punishment |
| Whether speech invaded rights of others (bullying/defamation) to justify discipline | Speech did not clearly target or cause harm to Student 1; factual disputes exist | Note invaded Student 1’s reputational/educational rights and violated bullying policy | Court: School’s bullying finding and asserted harms are disputed and insufficient now to defeat First Amendment claim |
| Whether preliminary‑injunction factors favor A.M. (irreparable harm, equities, public interest) | Suspension chills speech; First Amendment injury is irreparable; public interest favors protecting student speech | Judicial interference harms school administration and delays discipline | Court: Irreparable harm presumed if likely to prevail; balance of equities and public interest favor injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (affirming students’ right to non‑disruptive political expression at school)
- Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (explaining limits on student speech not addressing political or social issues)
- Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (allowing restriction of lewd or plainly offensive school speech)
- Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (allowing regulation of school‑sponsored speech)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (special protection for speech on matters of public concern)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (principle protecting debate on public issues)
- Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564 (government may not restrict speech based on content absent exception)
- First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (protection for speech on public concern)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable harm)
- D.B. ex rel. Elizabeth B. v. Esposito, 675 F.3d 26 (1st Cir.; elements for §1983 retaliation/discipline claims involving student speech)
- Arborjet, Inc. v. Rainbow Treecare Sci. Advancements, Inc., 794 F.3d 168 (1st Cir.; preliminary injunction factors)
- Sindicato Puertorriqueño de Trabajadores v. Fortuno, 699 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.; irreparable harm presumed when First Amendment likely to prevail)
- Kowalski v. Berkeley Cty. Sch., 652 F.3d 565 (4th Cir.; speech targeting a named student can justify discipline)
- Boim v. Fulton Cty. Sch. Dist., 494 F.3d 978 (11th Cir.; threats/violent speech can justify suspension)
- Cuff ex rel. B.C. v. Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 677 F.3d 109 (2d Cir.; school may restrict speech reasonably forecast to cause disruption)