Layshock v. Hermitage School District

The Third Circuit set out to determine if a school district can punish a student for expressive conduct that originated outside of the classroom, when that conduct did not disturb the school environment and was not related to any school sponsored event.^[1] The court applied the Tinker precedent from 1969, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that student expression may not be suppressed unless school officials reasonably conclude that it will "materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school."^[4] The court also applied Morse v. Frederick from 2007, in which the Supreme Court ruled that public schools could restrict student speech that takes place outside of school grounds, but only at official school-sanctioned events.^[5]

It was noted that Hermitage School District claimed to have authority over Layshock's actions because he had occasionally used the school computer network to access his fake MySpace profile of Trosch.^[1] The circuit court rejected this reasoning per Thomas v. Board of Education in which the Second Circuit ruled that information may be stored on school grounds or in school facilities, but the school has no authority over the expression of that information if the expression takes place outside of school grounds.^[6]

Ultimately, the Third Circuit ruled that Hermitage School District could not punish Layshock for his off-campus speech simply because that speech reached inside the school via computer networks.^[1] The fact that Layschock's speech was arguably vulgar was ruled irrelevant per J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District^[7] and related precedents because Layshock made no threats and did not advocate violence. Thus Layshock's suspension by the school district was ruled unconstitutional, affirming the district court ruling.^[1] The suspension was stricken from Layshock's permanent record. The school district ultimately paid Layschock and his parents $15,000 in damages and $506,500 in attorneys' fees.^[2]

Layshock v. Hermitage School District has been named as an important free speech precedent as the courts navigated the uncertainty of the early Internet and the extent of protected speech for public school students.^[8] However, the matter of student speech that originates outside of school grounds, but then possibly disrupts the educational experience when it reaches other students inside the school, was left vague and unsettled.^[9] Such confusion can be seen in the contradictory ruling by the Fourth Circuit in Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools.^[10] That contradiction was partially, but not completely, resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2021 in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.^[11]