## Facts

- Governors State University (GSU) students Margaret Hosty, Jeni Porche, and Steven Barba worked on *The Innovator*, a student newspaper funded through mandatory student activity fees and printed by an off-campus commercial printer.
- After *The Innovator* published articles sharply critical of university administrators, including coverage of adverse personnel decisions and criticism of a dean, the administration accused the paper of irresponsible and defamatory reporting.
- The student editors refused to retract disputed statements or print responses on terms demanded by administrators.
- Dean of Student Affairs Patricia Carter contacted the commercial printer and directed it not to print any issue unless she reviewed and approved it in advance.
- The printer, concerned about payment and institutional pressure, refused to print without Carter’s approval; the editors refused prior review, and publication stopped in November 2000.
- The paper later resumed under new management.
- The student journalists sued Carter for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment violations based on prior review and the effective shutdown.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment standard in *Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier* governing school-sponsored student publications can apply to a subsidized public university student newspaper.
2. Whether the newspaper’s status as a designated public forum (or not) affects the university’s authority to impose editorial control, including prior review.
3. Whether, in 2000, it was clearly established that Carter’s prior-review directive violated the First Amendment, such that she was not entitled to qualified immunity.

## Decision

- The en banc Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Carter and remanded.
- The court held that *Hazelwood*’s framework can apply to subsidized student newspapers at public colleges, with forum status as a key consideration.
- The court did not definitively decide whether *The Innovator* was a designated public forum or whether Carter’s conduct was unconstitutional on the merits.
- The court concluded that, given unsettled law in 2000 on *Hazelwood*’s reach and the paper’s forum status, Carter was entitled to qualified immunity from damages.

## Legal Principles

- A public university’s ability to regulate a student newspaper depends substantially on whether the publication is a designated public forum for student expression or a nonpublic forum associated with institutional sponsorship.
- For school-sponsored student publications that are not public fora, *Hazelwood* permits editorial control when reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns; the Seventh Circuit held this framework may extend to subsidized college newspapers.
- Qualified immunity bars damages liability unless the official violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.
- Where controlling precedent does not clearly resolve whether *Hazelwood* applies at the university level or clearly fix a publication’s forum status, an administrator may receive qualified immunity even if the challenged action could be unconstitutional on a fuller merits analysis.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that *Hazelwood* can govern subsidized public university student newspapers depending on forum status, and that because the law was not clearly established in 2000 on whether prior review of such a paper was unconstitutional, the dean who required advance approval before printing was entitled to qualified immunity from damages.


Hosty v. Carter, 412 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2005) (en banc)