| Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier | ||||||
 |
||||||
| Argued October 13, 1987 Decided January 12, 1988 |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full case name |
Hazelwood School District, et al. v. Kuhlmeier, et al.
|
|||||
| Docket nos. | 86-836 | |||||
| Citations | 484 U.S. 260 (more) 108 S. Ct. 562; 98 L. Ed. 2d 592; 1988 U.S. LEXIS 310; 56 U.S.L.W. 4079; 14 Media L. Rep. 2081 |
|||||
| Prior history | On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | |||||
| Argument | Oral argument | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| The Court held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established (by policy or practice) as forums for student expression. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | White, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia | |||||
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun | |||||
|
Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
|
||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| U.S. Const. amend. I | ||||||
Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established (by policy or practice) as forums for student expression. It was decided on January 13, 1988 in favor of Hazelwood School District, overruling a Court of Appeals reversal of a District Court ruling.
Contents |
The U.S. Supreme Court held for the first time that public school officials may impose some limits on what appears in school-sponsored student publications.
The high school paper was published as part of a journalism class. The principal at Hazelwood usually reviewed the school paper before it was published, and in this case he deleted two articles that the staff had written.
One of the deleted articles covered the issue of student pregnancy and included interviews with three students who had become pregnant while attending school. (There was also an article about several students whose parents had been divorced, however the students' names were not disclosed in the article.) To keep the students' identity secret, the staff used pseudonyms instead of the students' names. The principal said he felt the anonymity of the students was not sufficiently protected and that the girls' discussion of their use or non-use of birth control was inappropriate for some of the younger students who were 14-year-old freshmen.
The First Amendment's freedom of speech protections were not violated by the school district because the First Amendment protection for student expression described in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, , does not compel a public school to affirmatively sponsor speech that conflicts with its "legitimate pedagogical goals." The school-financed newspaper at issue was also not considered to be a public forum under the totality of circumstances present in the case, and therefore, its editors were entitled to a lower level of First Amendment protection than is applicable to independent student newspapers or those newspapers that have, by policy or practice, opened their pages to student opinion.
Under the First Amendment, school officials can censor non-forum student newspapers when they can justify their decision by stating an educational purpose. However, this decision does not allow school officials to censor articles want only or based on personal opinion, as shown in Dean v. Utica.
Some states have passed laws guaranteeing that non-forum newspapers, such as the Hazelwood East High School newspaper, have greater rights than the First Amendment requires[1].