Henerey ex rel. Henerey v. City of St. Charles
200 F.3d 1128, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 34002 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In the context of a school-sponsored, non-public forum such as a student election, a school may regulate student speech if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.
Facts:
- Adam Henerey, a sophomore at St. Charles High School, applied to run for junior class president.
- As a candidate, Henerey signed a contract agreeing to obey all school rules and was advised that all campaign materials required prior administrative approval.
- The administration approved Henerey's campaign slogan, "Adam Henerey, The Safe Choice."
- On the morning of the election, Henerey, without seeking or obtaining prior approval, distributed approximately eleven condoms attached to stickers bearing his campaign slogan in the school hallways.
- A student complained to the student council advisor, Mary Stodden, about Henerey's distribution of condoms.
- The school principal, Dr. Jerry Cook, disqualified Henerey from the election for failing to comply with School Board Rule KJ-R, which required prior approval for distributing materials.
- A subsequent count of the ballots revealed that Henerey had received a majority of the votes.
Procedural Posture:
- Adam Henerey, by his parent, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of St. Charles School District and school officials in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
- The defendants (the School District) moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding the school's rule constitutional and its actions reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical goals.
- Henerey (Appellant) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public high school violate a student's First Amendment rights by disqualifying him from a school-sponsored student election for distributing condoms with his campaign materials, in violation of a school rule requiring prior approval for all distributed items?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Wollman
No. The school's decision to disqualify Henerey did not violate his First Amendment rights because it was reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. The court determined that the student election was a school-sponsored activity conducted in a non-public forum, granting the school greater authority to regulate speech than it would have over purely personal student expression. Under the standard established in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, such regulation is permissible if it is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. The court found that the school's rule requiring prior approval of all materials (Rule KJ-R) was a constitutional prior restraint in the school setting, serving legitimate interests in maintaining order and preserving the educational environment. Disqualifying Henerey for violating this rule was a reasonable response. Furthermore, even if the action were content-based, the school has a legitimate pedagogical interest in teaching discipline, respect for authority, and in disassociating itself from controversial topics like teenage sexuality, which could be perceived to bear the school's imprimatur.
Dissenting - District Judge Wolle
Yes. A jury could have found that the school's disqualification of Henerey violated his First Amendment rights, making summary judgment inappropriate. The dissent argues that a genuine factual dispute exists as to whether the school's stated reason for disqualification—violating the prior approval rule—was a pretext for censoring the content of Henerey's safe-sex message. Evidence of selective enforcement, where other students distributed unapproved items like candy without punishment, could lead a jury to conclude the school's action was content-based. Additionally, a jury could find that disqualification was a disproportionate punishment for the rule violation. The dissent disagrees that the topic of safe sex is so controversial that it can be entirely suppressed in a high school student election.
Analysis:
This case reinforces and applies the Hazelwood standard, solidifying the broad authority of school officials to regulate student speech within school-sponsored activities. By classifying a student government election as a non-public forum and a curricular activity, the court gives schools significant leeway to control the content and manner of student expression to serve pedagogical goals. The decision establishes that teaching obedience to rules and avoiding association with controversial topics are legitimate pedagogical concerns that can justify restricting student speech. This precedent makes it more difficult for students to challenge school regulations on speech in any activity that could be perceived as bearing the school's endorsement.
