## Facts

- A public high school conducted a junior class president election as an educational activity supervised by a faculty advisor and administrators.
- Student candidates were required to meet with the advisor and sign a “contract of obligation” agreeing to obey all school rules during campaigning.
- A school board rule required students to obtain prior approval from the principal or assistant principal before distributing materials at school.
- The student signed the contract and obtained approval for his campaign slogan, “Adam Henerey, The Safe Choice.”
- After complaints about his campaign posters, the advisor reminded him that all campaign materials needed administrative approval.
- On election day, the student distributed about eleven condoms in school hallways with stickers bearing his approved slogan, without prior approval and without prior notice that his campaign would involve sex-related topics.
- The principal disqualified the student from the election for violating the prior-approval rule, even though the vote count showed he received a majority.
- The student sued the school district and administrators under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a First Amendment violation; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether disqualifying a student from a school-sponsored student government election for distributing unapproved campaign materials violated the First Amendment.
2. Whether the student’s election-related speech should be evaluated under *Tinker*’s substantial-disruption standard or *Hazelwood*’s school-sponsored-speech standard.
3. Whether enforcing a neutral prior-approval rule in this context constituted impermissible viewpoint discrimination.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the school district and administrators.
- The court treated the student government election as a school-sponsored activity that could reasonably be seen as bearing the school’s imprimatur.
- Applying *Hazelwood*, the court held the school could regulate election-related campaign speech in a manner reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.
- The court concluded the student was disqualified for violating a content-neutral prior-approval rule, not for his viewpoint or message.

## Legal Principles

- Student speech occurring within a school-sponsored activity may be regulated under *Hazelwood* if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.
- *Tinker*’s substantial-disruption requirement does not control where the speech is part of a school-sponsored program rather than independent student expression.
- A content-neutral rule requiring prior administrative approval for distribution of materials may be enforced in school to manage order and preserve the educational character of school activities.
- Absent evidence of viewpoint discrimination, discipline based on violation of a neutral rule does not violate the First Amendment merely because it affects election outcomes.

## Conclusion

Because the student government election was school-sponsored and the student violated a neutral prior-approval requirement by distributing condoms without review, the school’s decision to disqualify him was permissible under *Hazelwood* and did not violate the First Amendment.


Henerey ex rel. Henerey v. City of St. Charles Sch. Dist., 200 F.3d 1128 (8th Cir. 1999)