J.S. v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 13 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 08–4138.,08–4138. |
| Citation | 650 F.3d 915,271 Ed. Law Rep. 656 |
| Parties | J.S., a minor, through her parents; Terry SNYDER; Steven Snyder, Appellantsv.BLUE MOUNTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT; Joyce Romberger; James McGonigle. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Mary E. Kohart, Aliceson K. Littman, Tara S. Sarosiek, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Mary Catherine Roper, American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, Witold J. Walczak, (Argued), American Civil Liberties Union, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellants.
Jonathan P. Riba, (Argued), Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams, New Britain, PA, for Appellees.Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, SCIRICA, RENDELL, BARRY, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges.
J.S., a minor, by and through her parents, Terry Snyder and Steven Snyder, individually and on behalf of their daughter, appeal the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Blue Mountain School District (“the School District”) and denial of their motion for summary judgment. This case arose when the School District suspended J.S. for creating, on a weekend and on her home computer, a MySpace profile (the “profile”) making fun of her middle school principal, James McGonigle. The profile contained adult language and sexually explicit content. J.S. and her parents sued the School District under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging that the suspension violated J.S.'s First Amendment free speech rights, that the School District's policies were unconstitutionally overbroad and vague, that the School District violated the Snyders' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights to raise their child, and that the School District acted outside of its authority in punishing J.S. for out-of-school speech.
Because J.S. was suspended from school for speech that indisputably caused no substantial disruption in school and that could not reasonably have led school officials to forecast substantial disruption in school, the School District's actions violated J.S.'s First Amendment free speech rights. We will accordingly reverse and remand that aspect of the District Court's judgment. However, we will affirm the District Court's judgment that the School District's policies were not overbroad or void-for-vagueness, and that the School District did not violate the Snyders' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights.
J.S. was an Honor Roll eighth grade student who had never been disciplined in school until December 2006 and February 2007, when she was twice disciplined for dress code violations by McGonigle. On Sunday, March 18, 2007, J.S. and her friend K.L., another eighth grade student at Blue Mountain Middle School, created a fake profile of McGonigle, which they posted on MySpace, a social networking website. The profile was created at J.S.'s home, on a computer belonging to J.S.'s parents.
The profile did not identify McGonigle by name, school, or location, though it did contain his official photograph from the School District's website. The profile was presented as a self-portrayal of a bisexual Alabama middle school principal named “M–Hoe.” The profile contained crude content and vulgar language, ranging from nonsense and juvenile humor to profanity and shameful personal attacks aimed at the principal and his family. For instance, the profile lists M–Hoe's general interests as: “detention, being a tight ass, riding the fraintrain, spending time with my child (who looks like a gorilla), baseball, my golden pen, fucking in my office, hitting on students and their parents.” Appendix (“App.”) 38. In addition, the profile stated in the “About me” section:
HELLO CHILDREN[.] yes. it's your oh so wonderful, hairy, expressionless, sex addict, fagass, put on this world with a small dick PRINCIPAL[.] I have come to myspace so i can pervert the minds of other principal's [sic] to be just like me. I know, I know, you're all thrilled[.] Another reason I came to myspace is because—I am keeping an eye on you students (who[m] I care for so much)[.] For those who want to be my friend, and aren't in my school[,] I love children, sex (any kind), dogs, long walks on the beach, tv, being a dick head, and last but not least my darling wife who looks like a man (who satisfies my needs) MY FRAINTRAIN....
Id. Though disturbing, the record indicates that the profile was so outrageous that no one took its content seriously. J.S. testified that she intended the profile to be a joke between herself and her friends. At her deposition, she testified that she created the profile because she thought it was “comical” insofar as it was so “outrageous.” App. 190.
Initially, the profile could be viewed in full by anyone who knew the URL (or address) or who otherwise found the profile by searching MySpace for a term it contained. The following day, however, J.S. made the profile “private” after several students approached her at school, generally to say that they thought the profile was funny. App. 194. By making the profile “private,” J.S. limited access to the profile to people whom she and K.L. invited to be a MySpace “friend.” J.S. and K.L. granted “friend” status to about twenty-two School District students.
The School District's computers block access to MySpace, so no Blue Mountain student was ever able to view the profile from school. McGonigle first learned about the profile on Tuesday, March 20, 2007, from a student who was in his office to discuss an unrelated incident. McGonigle asked this student to attempt to find out who had created the profile. He also attempted—unsuccessfully—to find the profile himself, even contacting MySpace directly.
At the end of the school day on Tuesday, the student who initially told McGonigle about the profile reported to him that it had been created by J.S. McGonigle asked this student to bring him a printout of the profile to school the next day, which she did. It is undisputed that the only printout of the profile that was ever brought to school was one brought at McGonigle's specific request.
On Wednesday, March 21, 2007, McGonigle showed the profile to Superintendent Joyce Romberger and the Director of Technology, Susan Schneider–Morgan. The three met for about fifteen minutes to discuss the profile. McGonigle also showed the profile to two guidance counselors, Michelle Guers and Debra Frain (McGonigle's wife). McGonigle contacted MySpace to attempt to discover what computer had been used to create the profile, but MySpace refused to release that information without a court order. The School District points to no evidence that anyone ever suspected the information in the profile to be true.
McGonigle ultimately decided that the creation of the profile was a Level Four Infraction under the Disciplinary Code of Blue Mountain Middle School, Student–Parent Handbook, App. 65–66, as a false accusation about a staff member of the school and a “copyright” violation of the computer use policy, for using McGonigle's photograph. At his deposition, however, McGonigle admitted that he believed the students App. 327.1
J.S. was absent from school on Wednesday, the day McGonigle obtained a copy of the profile. When she returned, on Thursday, March 22, 2007, McGonigle summoned J.S. and K.L. to his office to meet with him and Guidance Counselor Guers. J.S. initially denied creating the profile, but then admitted her role. McGonigle told J.S. and K.L. that he was upset and angry, and threatened the children and their families with legal action. App. 333–34. Following this meeting, J.S. and K.L. remained in McGonigle's office while he contacted their parents and waited for them to come to school.
McGonigle met with J.S. and her mother Terry Snyder and showed Mrs. Snyder the profile. He told the children's parents that J.S. and K.L. would receive ten days out-of-school suspension, which also prohibited attendance at school dances. McGonigle also threatened legal action. J.S. and her mother both apologized to McGonigle, and J.S. subsequently wrote a letter of apology to McGonigle and his wife.
McGonigle next contacted MySpace, provided the URL for the profile and requested its removal, which was done. McGonigle also contacted Superintendent Romberger to inform her of his decision regarding J.S. and K.L.'s punishment. Although Romberger could have overruled McGonigle's decision, she agreed with the punishment. On Friday, March 23, 2007, McGonigle sent J.S.'s parents a disciplinary notice, which stated that J.S. had been suspended for ten days. 2 The following week, Romberger declined Mrs. Snyder's request to overrule the suspension.
On the same day McGonigle met with J.S. and her mother, he contacted the local police and asked about the possibility of pressing criminal charges against the students. The local police referred McGonigle to the state police, who informed him that he could press harassment charges, but that the charges would likely be dropped. McGonigle chose not to press charges. An officer did, however, complete a formal report and asked McGonigle whether he wanted the state police to call the students and their parents to the police station to let them know how serious the situation was. McGonigle asked the officer to do this, and on Friday, March 23, J.S. and K.L. and their mothers were summoned to the state police station to discuss the profile.
The School District asserted that the profile disrupted school in the following ways. There were general “rumblings” in the school regarding the profile. More specifically, on Tuesday, March 20, McGonigle was approached by two teachers who informed him that students were discussing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hewlette-Bullard ex rel. J.H-B. v. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist.
...speech only when the school has "a specific and significant fear of disruption." Id. at 178 (quoting J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist. , 650 F.3d 915, 926 (3d Cir. 2011) ). The question of whether a student's speech is protected by the First Amendment is a question of law to b......
-
Sagehorn v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 728, Civil No. 14–1930 (JRT/BRT).
..."result[ ] in foreseeable and substantial disruption of the school." Id. at 219.The second case is J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain School District, 650 F.3d 915 (3d Cir.2011) (en banc), filed the same day as Layshock. In J.S., an honor roll eighth grade student created a fake MySpace p......
-
In re Kendall
...or viewpoint and “regardless of whether it is disruptive, offensive, vulgar or insulting.” J.S. v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 936 (3d Cir.2011) (en banc) (Smith, J., concurring). Yet that rule is not absolute. When acting as sovereign, the government is empowered to impose time......
-
Greenberg v. Goodrich
...Amendment's Due Process clause allows courts to find regulations unconstitutional due to vagueness. See J.S. v. Blue Mt. Sch. Dist. , 650 F.3d 915, 935 (3d Cir. 2011) ; see also Marshall v. Amuso , 571 F.Supp.3d 412, 422–24 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 17, 2021). The Supreme Court has explained that the ......
-
COMPUTER CRIMES
...Third Circuit has not resolved whether Tinker applies to off- campus speech); see also J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 931 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc) (assuming, without deciding, that Tinker applies to harassing online speech). The remaining circuit courts have ......
-
Where good intentions go bad: redrafting the Massachusetts cyberbullying statute to protect student speech.
...Mountain Sch. Dist. v. J.S. ex. rel. Snyder, 132 S. Ct. 1097 (2012); J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist. (Blue Mountain II), 650 F.3d 915 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1097 (2012). For a discussion on the Layshock case, see David C. Soutter, Comment, Third C......
-
Rehabilitating Tinker: A Modest Proposal To Protect Public-School Students' First Amendment Free Expression Rights in the Digital Age
...Cnty. Sch., 652 F.3d 565, 567 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct. 1095 (2012). 12. J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 920 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct. 1097 (2012); Layshock ex rel. Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 205, 207 ......
-
Tinkering with Student Speech: Balancing the Protection of Students' First Amendment Rights with a School's Duty to Protect.
...have not definitively recognized whether Tinker applies to off-campus speech. See J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 926, 930 (3rd Cir. 2011) (en banc) (assuming Tinker applies without definitively stating it does); Porter, 393 F.3d at 615-16 n.22 (noting difficu......