## Facts

- Justin Layshock, a 17-year-old high school senior, created a vulgar parody profile of his principal on MySpace.
- He created the profile off campus at his grandmother’s home, on her computer, during non-school hours.
- The only school-related material used was a photograph of the principal copied from the school district’s website.
- Other students accessed the profile; some viewed it on school computers before the district blocked MySpace.
- Layshock admitted authorship and apologized when confronted by school administrators.
- The school district imposed discipline including a 10-day out-of-school suspension, reassignment to an alternative education program for the remainder of the year, and exclusion from extracurricular activities; an initial ban on attending graduation was later lifted.
- Layshock (through his parents) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging, among other claims, a First Amendment violation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Layshock on the First Amendment claim; the Third Circuit (en banc) affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a public school may discipline a student for off-campus, online speech that was not school-sponsored and did not materially and substantially disrupt school operations.
2. Whether student access to that off-campus speech on school computers supplies a sufficient nexus to treat the expression as on-campus speech subject to regulation under *Tinker*.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit (en banc) affirmed summary judgment for Layshock on his First Amendment claim.
- The court held the school district violated the First Amendment by punishing Layshock for off-campus online speech.
- The district failed to show a sufficient nexus between the off-campus parody and school authority, and failed to show (or reasonably forecast) a material and substantial disruption.
- Student viewing of the profile at school and limited discussion did not convert the expression into on-campus conduct or justify the imposed sanctions.

## Legal Principles

- Under *Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District*, a school may restrict student speech only when officials reasonably conclude the speech will materially and substantially disrupt schoolwork or discipline.
- For off-campus student speech, a school must show a constitutionally sufficient connection to the school and a disruption (or reasonable forecast of disruption) meeting the *Tinker* standard before imposing discipline.
- A school generally may not extend disciplinary authority beyond campus to punish student expression created off campus, on non-school time and equipment, absent the required disruption-based justification.

## Conclusion

The en banc Third Circuit held that the school district impermissibly punished a student for an off-campus MySpace parody of a principal because the district did not demonstrate a substantial disruption or a sufficient nexus that would allow the school to regulate the speech under *Tinker*, making the discipline unconstitutional under the First Amendment.


Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc)