Can a public school suspend a student for an entire year simply for asking a private, off-campus question about a potential safety threat? That’s exactly what happened to a seventh grader in Jackson, Mo. Now, the Goldwater Institute is standing up for that student’s due process and free expression rights and taking her case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The ordeal began in September 2024, when the seventh grader, whom we’re identifying only as A.N., came across a troubling social media post that she thought might target her school. Concerned for her safety and that of her classmates, she sent a private message from home to another student asking if the threat was real. The other student, who was from the neighboring school district, asked if A.N. had taken a screenshot of the threat. A.N. replied that she had not, but she recreated the threatening image and sent it to him—all while making it clear that it originated from someone else.
Unfortunately, the other student shared the message publicly without that vital context, sparking widespread alarm. School officials in the Jackson R-II School District canceled classes for a day and law enforcement quickly stepped in.
Police thoroughly investigated and confirmed what was obvious from the start: A.N. had zero intent to threaten anyone, scare her classmates, or cause a disruption. She was simply trying to determine if her school was safe.
Yet, despite being cleared of any wrongdoing by law enforcement, school administrators handed down a devastating punishment. First, they suspended A.N. for 10 days. Then, they extended that suspension to 180 days—effectively stripping a 12-year-old of an entire academic year of her education.
What’s at Stake
While the federal district court ruled in favor of the school district, that decision undermines established constitutional protections for students and families. The case raises several important constitutional questions.
Some of these questions involve the due process of law, asking whether the possibility of a long-term suspension requires school administrators to tell students in advance of any disciplinary hearing what policies they are accused of violating, what discipline they might be facing, and what evidence the administrators intend to use to decide whether the policies were violated and the severity of any punishment.
Here, the superintendent gave A.N.’s family less than 24 hours’ notice before holding the disciplinary hearing that would decide her fate. The family was not told in advance what policies she was accused of violating or that she was facing a potential long-term suspension or expulsion. The district also failed to disclose some of the statements it ultimately used against A.N.—meaning she had no opportunity to address those statements or to cross-examine the individuals who made them.
More than 50 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that when a public school seeks to impose a severe punishment, like a 180-day suspension, the Fourteenth Amendment requires it to afford the student a meaningful, fair opportunity to defend herself.
Other questions here involve the freedom of expression, asking whether a school may deem speech “threatening” even when one student is merely discussing with another a potential threat made by someone else. As the police quickly discerned, A.N. had no intent to threaten anyone, and it was also clear the student she communicated with was aware that A.N. was not threatening anyone by asking him about the message she had seen.
The First Amendment allows schools to discipline students who make actual threats or otherwise disrupt the school environment But the Supreme Court has also cautioned that public schools do not stand in the shoes of parents 24 hours a day. Off-campus speech—especially private conversations taking place outside of school hours—is subject to the guidance of parents, not the heavy hand of school administrators.
A school cannot punish a student merely because third parties misinterpret or misuse her private, innocent words.
Standing Up for Freedom in the Eighth Circuit
Public schools exist to educate children, not to act as round-the-clock speech police. Students do not surrender their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate—and they certainly do not lose them when sitting in their own bedrooms sending private messages to friends.
The Goldwater Institute is taking this fight to the Eighth Circuit to ensure school districts are held accountable to the Constitution, student due process and free speech rights are vindicated, and parents remain the ultimate authority over their children’s lives outside the classroom.
Click here to read Goldwater’s filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. You can read more about the case and access case documents here.
Dave Roland is the Director of Allied Litigation at the Goldwater Institute.
