Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada, Inc. v. Clark County School District
887 F.2d 935 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
School-sponsored publications are nonpublic forums, and therefore a school district may reasonably refuse to publish advertisements on controversial subjects to protect its educational mission and avoid the appearance of endorsing a particular viewpoint, without violating the First Amendment.
Facts:
- Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada, a non-profit corporation, provides clinical, educational, and counseling services relating to reproductive health.
- The Clark County School District authorizes its high schools to publish newspapers, yearbooks, and athletic event programs.
- School newspapers and yearbooks are produced as part of the journalism and publications course curriculum, for which students receive grades and academic credit.
- A district-wide policy memorandum grants principals discretion to exclude advertising that may be viewed as school endorsement of a viewpoint at variance with its educational program, including advertisements with explicit sexual content or overtones.
- Some individual high schools also had written policies explicitly prohibiting advertisements for birth control products or information.
- During 1984 and 1985, Planned Parenthood submitted advertisements to various high schools that listed its services, including 'Birth Control Methods' and 'Pregnancy Counseling & Referral'.
- Most of the school publications rejected Planned Parenthood's advertisements.
Procedural Posture:
- Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit against the Clark County School District in the U.S. District Court, alleging a violation of its First Amendment rights.
- The case was submitted to the district court for a decision based on stipulated facts.
- Initially, the district court found in favor of Planned Parenthood, ruling that the school publications were limited public fora.
- After the Supreme Court's decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the district court revisited its decision.
- The district court then reversed its prior holding, found that the publications were nonpublic fora, and entered judgment in favor of the school district.
- Planned Parenthood, as appellant, appealed the final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 school district's refusal to publish advertisements from Planned Parenthood in its school-sponsored newspapers, yearbooks, and athletic programs violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression?
Opinions:
Majority - Wallace, Circuit Judge
No. The school district's refusal to publish Planned Parenthood's advertisements does not violate the First Amendment because the school publications are nonpublic forums, and the restrictions are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. Applying the Supreme Court's framework from Hazelwood, the court determined that the school district did not demonstrate a 'clear intent' to create a designated public forum. The newspapers and yearbooks are part of the curriculum, and the school maintains editorial control to serve its educational mission. Similarly, the athletic programs are nonpublic because the district's policies consistently show an intent to limit access and control content, and the mere acceptance of some commercial advertising does not convert the property into a public forum. Because the publications are nonpublic forums, the district's restrictions need only be reasonable. The court found the district's desire to avoid controversial topics like teenage sexual activity, maintain neutrality, and prevent the misattribution of the speaker's views to the school constituted valid educational purposes, making the restrictions reasonable.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the Hazelwood standard to advertising within school-sponsored publications, extending its principles beyond student-authored content. It clarifies that schools do not create a designated public forum merely by accepting some outside advertisements, thereby retaining significant editorial control. The ruling grants school administrators substantial deference to restrict speech based on legitimate pedagogical concerns, such as avoiding controversy or subjects deemed inappropriate for minors. This precedent reinforces that the government's intent is the dispositive factor in forum analysis and significantly strengthens a school's authority to regulate the content of its publications to protect its educational environment.
Unlock the full brief for Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada, Inc. v. Clark County School District