## Facts

- A Texas public high school student wrote journal entries and other writings describing violent acts and threats aimed at classmates and the school.
- School officials obtained the writings through school-related channels and treated them as posing a safety concern.
- The school disciplined the student and took steps intended to address school safety.
- The student and parent sued the school district and officials, alleging violations of the First Amendment and other federal rights based on the school’s response to the writings.
- The defendants asserted qualified immunity and sought dismissal/summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether a student’s violent, threatening writings are protected by the First Amendment in the school context such that discipline violates clearly established law.
2. Whether school officials are entitled to qualified immunity for disciplining a student based on writings perceived as threatening and disruptive.
3. Whether the school district could be held liable under federal civil-rights law absent a showing of an official policy or custom causing the alleged constitutional violation.

## Decision

- The court ruled for the individual school officials on qualified-immunity grounds.
- The court concluded that, given the safety context and existing precedent, any asserted First Amendment right to be free from discipline for the writings was not clearly established.
- The court rejected municipal liability against the school district absent proof of an actionable policy/custom meeting the governing standard.
- The claims were dismissed or otherwise resolved in defendants’ favor.

## Legal Principles

- Student speech at school may be regulated when officials reasonably forecast substantial disruption or when the speech reasonably appears to threaten school safety.
- True threats and speech reasonably interpreted as threatening are not protected in the same manner as ordinary student expression.
- Qualified immunity bars damages unless the plaintiff shows a constitutional violation of clearly established law at the time of the conduct.
- A school district is liable under § 1983 only if an official policy or custom is the moving force behind a constitutional violation.

## Conclusion

The court held that school officials were shielded by qualified immunity for disciplining a student based on violent, threatening writings because no clearly established First Amendment rule forbade the officials’ safety-based response, and the record did not support federal municipal liability against the district.


Ponce v. Socorro Indep. Sch. Dist., 508 F.3d 765 (5th Cir. 2007)