Hannibal Public School District v. D.J.M. [1]

In the fall of 2006, D.J.M. was a 10th grade student in the public school system in Hannibal, Missouri. On October 24 of that year, D.J.M. sent a series of messages to a fellow classmate, C.M., over an instant messaging platform. The messages allude to D.J.M.'s ability to obtain a gun, and during the conversation D.J.M. speculates as to who he would shoot and who he would not amongst his peers. Both D.J.M. and C.M. show amusement and levity during the conversation, frequently adding interjections such as "haha" and "lol."

At some point during the conversation, C.M. became concerned and sent a transcript of the messages to an adult, who in turn contacted the principal of the high school. The principal called the district superintendent, who in turn called the police. The police visited D.J.M. that same evening, and placed him in juvenile detention; D.J.M. was later transferred to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation. He remained under hospital supervision until November 28, 2006.

In the interim, the school district placed D.J.M. under a suspension for the rest of the school year. D.J.M.'s parents appealed the suspension to the Hannibal school board, who affirmed the suspension. D.J.M. returned to high school the following year, and graduated ahead of the rest of his class.

On March 14, 2007, D.J.M. brought suit in Missouri state court [2], alleging that the suspension of D.J.M. violated his First Amendment right to free speech under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and requesting administrative review of the suspension determination under state law. The case was removed to the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in November 2008.

On January 25, 2010, the district court granted summary judgment [3] for the defendant school distrcit on the section 1983 claim, and remanded the state law claim to the Missouri circuit court. The district court found the messages communicated by D.J.M. to be a "true threat" under Watts v. United States [4], as applied in the school setting by an en banc panel the Eighth Circuit in Doe v. Pulaski County Special School District [5]. In the alternative, the court found authority for the school to punish the student, notwithstanding the First Amendment, under the "substantial interference" test in the student-speech line of cases following Tinker v. Des Moines [6].

The Eighth Circuit affirmed [7] the district court on August 1, 2011. The court affirmed under both the "true threat" rationale, as examined under Doe, and under the "substantial interference" grounds of Tinker. The court expressly rejected D.J.M.'s claim that the question as to whether the threat was a "true threat" is an issue of material fact. The court also allowed the "substantial interference" test of Tinker to be applied off campus, following the Second Circuit in Wisniewski v. Weedsport Central School District [8].