S.J.W. Ex Rel. Wilson v. Lee's Summit R-7 School District
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21570
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- The Lee's Summit R-7 School District suspended twins Steven and Sean Wilson for 180 days due to disruption from a website they created, NorthPress, in December 2011.
- NorthPress contained offensive, racist, and sexually explicit content targeting female classmates; a third student posted content as well, and the site was accessible to many students.
- District officials linked the Wilsons to NorthPress promptly; after hearings, the district suspended them for 180 days but allowed enrollment at an alternative school for the duration.
- The Wilsons filed suit, seeking a preliminary injunction to lift the suspensions; the district court granted and the Wilsons returned to their regular school.
- The School District appealed, arguing the district court lacked sufficient irreparable-harm findings and misapplied standards for likely success on the merits.
- The Eighth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, holding the district court’s findings did not support the relief and that the Wilsons were unlikely to succeed on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tinker governs the case and supports injunctive relief | Wilsons contend off-campus speech is protected and did not create a substantial disruption. | District argues Tinker applies; NorthPress caused substantial disruption and was directed at the school. | Tinker likely applies; unlikely to succeed on merits |
| Whether the district court adequately showed irreparable harm | Irreparable harm from loss of not pursuing band/honors; ongoing disruption. | Harm was speculative or already reflected in Summit Ridge Academy placement; no certain irreparable harm. | No sufficient irreparable harm shown |
| Whether the CDA shields the Wilsons from discipline | NorthPress posts were content from others; Wilsons were mere providers; CDA protects them. | District found Wilsons’ posts contributed to disruption; CDA not controlling here. | CDA not controlling; disruption and contributions weighed against protection |
| Whether the district court properly applied the Dataphase standard or erred as to permanent-injunction criteria | Preliminary injunction appropriate relief given likelihood of success and harm. | Standard proper as a preliminary injunction; not a permanent-injunction analysis. | Applied correct standard; injunction reversed on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Pulaski County Special School District, 306 F.3d 616 (8th Cir. 2002) (Tinker-like analysis for school speech)
- D.J.M. v. Hannibal Public School District #60, 647 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 2011) (off-campus speech foreseeably reaching school can be punished)
- Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools, 652 F.3d 565 (4th Cir. 2011) (school may discipline online speech that is substantially disruptive)
- Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2008) (off-campus online speech that targets campus can be punished)
- J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District, 650 F.3d 915 (3d Cir. 2011) (off-campus speech not causing disruption may be protected; assumes Tinker applied)