## Facts

- Nick Emmett, an 18-year-old high school senior with no disciplinary history, created a personal website from home on his own time without school resources.
- The site was labeled the “Unofficial Kentlake High Home Page,” included disclaimers that it was not school-sponsored, and contained satirical commentary about the school.
- The site posted tongue-in-cheek mock “obituaries” of classmates and included an online poll asking visitors to vote on who would “die” next (i.e., be the subject of a future mock obituary).
- A local television broadcast characterized the site as a “hit list,” though that phrase did not appear on the site; Emmett removed the site the same night.
- The next day, school officials imposed an emergency expulsion for intimidation, harassment, disruption, and copyright violation; the discipline was reduced to a five-day suspension.
- The school offered no evidence that students actually felt threatened and no evidence that Emmett intended to intimidate or threaten anyone.

## Issues

1. Whether a public school may discipline a student for off-campus, non-school-sponsored online speech consistent with the First Amendment.
2. Whether the school demonstrated a sufficient basis under student-speech doctrine to justify discipline, including a material and substantial disruption or a credible threat.

## Decision

- The district court granted a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the five-day suspension.
- The court found Emmett likely to succeed on his First Amendment claim.
- The court treated the website as private, off-campus speech rather than school-sponsored expression.
- The court found the record lacked evidence of actual threats, intent to threaten, or facts showing a material and substantial disruption attributable to the website.

## Legal Principles

- Student speech that is not school-sponsored is not governed by the school-editorial-control standard applicable to school-sponsored publications and activities.
- A school generally must show facts supporting a material and substantial interference with school operations, or a reasonable forecast of such interference, to justify discipline based on student expression.
- A school’s safety concerns, without evidence linking the student’s expression to a credible threat or substantial disruption, are insufficient to support discipline for protected expression.
- In First Amendment cases, loss of speech rights and the collateral effects of a suspension can constitute irreparable injury supporting injunctive relief.

## Conclusion

The court temporarily enjoined the suspension because the school failed to substantiate that the student’s off-campus satirical website constituted a true threat or caused, or could reasonably be expected to cause, material and substantial disruption sufficient to justify discipline under the First Amendment.


Emmett v. Kent Sch. Dist. No. 415, 92 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2000)