## Facts

- A Mississippi public school student recorded and posted an off-campus rap video containing profanity and threatening language directed at two school coaches.
- The video referenced the coaches by name and described violent acts; it was accessible to other students and members of the school community.
- School officials learned of the video and determined it raised safety concerns and risked disruption at school.
- The school disciplined the student under school policies governing threats, harassment, and disruptive conduct.
- The student and his mother filed suit against the school board and officials, alleging the discipline violated the student’s First Amendment rights.

## Issues

1. Whether a public school may discipline a student for off-campus online speech that targets school employees and is reasonably forecast to cause a substantial disruption at school.
2. Whether the speech constituted a “true threat” or otherwise fell outside First Amendment protection in the school context.
3. Whether the school officials were entitled to qualified immunity on the student’s damages claims.

## Decision

- The en banc Fifth Circuit affirmed judgment for the school district and officials.
- The court held the school’s discipline was constitutional because officials could reasonably forecast substantial disruption and interference with school operations.
- The court concluded that, in the circumstances presented, the First Amendment did not bar school discipline for the off-campus speech at issue.
- The court held the individual officials were protected by qualified immunity because the constitutional limits on disciplining off-campus online speech were not clearly established.

## Legal Principles

- Student speech may be regulated when school officials reasonably forecast that the speech will materially and substantially disrupt schoolwork or discipline or collide with the rights and safety of others.
- Off-campus online speech may be subject to school discipline when it is intentionally directed at the school community and bears a sufficient connection to likely on-campus disruption or safety concerns.
- Speech that communicates violence toward specific school personnel can support a reasonable forecast of disruption even if posted off campus.
- Qualified immunity shields school officials from damages unless existing precedent clearly establishes that the challenged discipline violates the First Amendment.

## Conclusion

The en banc court upheld a school’s authority to discipline a student for a profane, violent off-campus online rap aimed at school staff where disruption and safety impacts at school were reasonably foreseeable, and it further held the officials were entitled to qualified immunity.


Bell v. Itawamba Cnty. Sch. Bd., 799 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2015) (en banc)