## Facts

- Kentucky State University (KSU), a public university, funded production and distribution of its student yearbook, *The Thorobred*, which was written and assembled by students with limited faculty advising.
- Capri Coffer served as student editor and sought a modernized format emphasizing current events and off-campus material.
- KSU administrators, including the Vice President for Student Affairs, objected to the yearbook’s cover color, thematic choices, and perceived defects in captions and layout.
- KSU confiscated all printed copies and refused to distribute the yearbooks to students, including those who had paid for them.
- The student editor and a student purchaser sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the nondistribution violated the First Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether a university-funded, student-edited yearbook is a limited public forum or a nonpublic forum for First Amendment purposes.
2. Whether university officials may confiscate and refuse to distribute the yearbook based on dissatisfaction with its content and presentation, including under the standard associated with *Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier*.

## Decision

- The en banc Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment for the university officials.
- The court held the yearbook functioned as a limited public forum for student expression based on university policy and practice placing editorial control with student editors and demonstrating minimal administrative oversight.
- Applying limited public forum standards, the court held the confiscation and blanket refusal to distribute were not reasonable in light of the forum’s purpose and constituted impermissible content- and viewpoint-based censorship.
- The court distinguished *Hazelwood* as a high-school, curricular context and declined to apply its deferential standard to a university yearbook in these circumstances.
- The case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiffs and to determine appropriate relief.

## Legal Principles

- Government restrictions in a limited public forum must be reasonable in light of the forum’s purpose and must be viewpoint-neutral.
- A university’s policy and consistent practice assigning editorial control to students can create a limited public forum in a school-sponsored publication.
- Confiscating and suppressing an entire student publication because administrators dislike its message, design, or portrayal of the institution is content- and viewpoint-based and generally unconstitutional absent a valid, forum-appropriate justification.
- The *Hazelwood* standard does not automatically govern censorship disputes involving university student media; the educational setting and institutional commitments to student editorial independence matter to the First Amendment analysis.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that KSU’s student yearbook was a limited public forum and that administrators violated the First Amendment by confiscating and refusing to distribute it based on objections to its content and presentation, requiring judgment for the student plaintiffs and a determination of relief.


Kincaid v. Gibson, 236 F.3d 342 (6th Cir. 2001) (en banc)