Reexamining the First Amendment within the Future of Student Media
By: Hannah Brooker
Edited by: Brooke Ebner and Valerie Lane
Disputes over student journalism have resurfaced nationwide, reopening longstanding tensions between university oversight and the First Amendment. From universities to high schools, decisions to halt or restrict student media now test the boundaries of student press rights and revive unresolved questions about how constitutional protections apply in campus environments today.
The First Amendment binds public universities, although the scope of their obligations toward student media remains unsettled. The Supreme Court’s 1969 student-speech case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, appeared to promise strong protection for student journalists. In Tinker, the Court protected students who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, ruling that schools cannot punish student expression unless it significantly interferes with the normal operations of the school.[1] Yet, later decisions, such as Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier in 1988, granted schools greater authority over “school-sponsored” media, allowing administrators to regulate content that appears to bear institutional endorsement. Hazelwood East High School’s principal removed articles on teen pregnancy and divorce from a school newspaper produced as part of a class. [2] Because Hazelwood involved a high school program, courts have since struggled to determine whether its logic extends to public colleges where students typically exercise far greater editorial independence. That uncertainty has shaped decades of conflict in the student-press landscape.
Meanwhile, campus journalism has transformed. Student outlets now operate across multimedia platforms, producing digital investigations, podcasts, newsletters, and social media reporting that often reach national audiences. Universities face reputational and legal pressures tied to these forms of speech, while student journalists see themselves as independent watchdogs holding administrators accountable. These competing pressures reflect the unresolved doctrinal fault lines at the center of student-press law.
To contextualize these tensions, this article examines current disputes shaping student-press rights, incorporating insights from Student Press Law Center (SPLC) staff attorney Jonathan Gaston-Falk, whose organization provides legal assistance to student journalists nationwide.[3]
A. Public vs. Private Institutions
Whether a university is public or private is the fundamental question in any student-press conflict. Public institutions, acting as state actors, must justify speech restrictions in accordance with constitutional standards. Private universities generally have broad discretion, though many voluntarily adopt expressive-rights policies that mirror First Amendment protections.
As Gaston-Falk explained, SPLC attorneys often must investigate a private school’s own governance documents to determine what protections students can claim. He noted that, “[For public schools] we have to be a little bit more creative dealing with our governance language and see whether the university has set up some sort of a contract related to speech. [...] Typically, that language is borrowing from a lot of what the First Amendment has to say on public campuses. [...] In the public space, we're always able to rely on the First Amendment because employees of the school district, when we're in high school or of the college or university, when we're at that level, are paid by tax dollars.”[7]
His comments highlighted that, even when constitutional doctrine does not directly apply, institutions often voluntarily bind themselves, intentionally or not, to First Amendment-like principles.
B. How Hazelwood and Hosty Shape Today’s Conflicts
More than three decades after Hazelwood, courts and administrators still debate its reach in higher education. Although Hazelwood addressed high school media, the Court explicitly declined to say whether its reasoning applied to colleges. This uncertainty led most courts to treat college publications as more independent than high school ones. This context makes the Seventh Circuit’s 2005 decision in Hosty v. Carter especially significant: it was the first and only appellate ruling to extend Hazelwood to certain college publications.[4] In Hosty, administrators ordered the student newspaper’s printer not to publish without prior approval after the paper ran stories critical of the administration. The court held that Hazelwood could apply to some college publications, depending on how closely they were tied to the institution.
Gaston-Falk noted that “Hazelwood introduced that idea” that courts must examine the relationship between a publication and the institution, whether it is a class, a club, or supervised by an adviser. He emphasized the significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling, clarifying that Hazelwood was a high-school-specific ruling. But as he pointed out, the Hosty decision still said that “Hazelwood is our starting point,” creating an important exception within the Seventh Circuit.
He contrasted Hosty with today’s conflicts, such as an ongoing conflict at Indiana University. At Indiana University, administrators eliminated the student newspaper’s print edition, and emails revealed that they had pressured students to produce ‘feel-good journalism,’ raising concerns of content-based censorship. By contrast, The Hosty case involved students refusing prior review after being accused of defamation, which is different from the equitable relief sought by students facing content-based cuts today. As Gaston-Falk put it, the Hosty court used “mental gyrations” to apply the Hazelwood framework to college media, making it “the only case in the country that does that.”[7] Still, because Seventh Circuit precedent governs institutions like Indiana University, its reasoning continues to shape current disputes.
C. Digital Platforms and Administrative Control
The expansion of digital and independently hosted student journalism has forced a reexamination of what it means for media to be “school-sponsored.” Many student outlets now publish on platforms outside university oversight, yet administrators increasingly attempt to regulate these channels due to safety or institutional affiliation.
This tension escalated in 2021 with Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., which involved a cheerleader’s off-campus Snapchat post and held that schools have only limited authority to regulate off-campus student speech.[5] While the case arose in a high-school context, its logic may shape future higher-education disputes, especially regarding independent digital journalism.
Gaston-Falk explained how these dynamics play out on the ground. He noted that when administrators claim financial necessity, such as shifting from print to online-only, courts typically defer absent evidence of content-based targeting. But at Indiana University, he said, “We have evidence to suggest that they did not like the content that was output.”[7] This pointed to administrative demands for “feel-good journalism” preceding print cuts. Since such content-based restrictions trigger heightened First Amendment scrutiny, the university’s actions raise far more serious constitutional concerns.
He also highlighted the significance of independent digital platforms. BL v. Mahanoy recognized limits to a school’s power to punish off-campus speech. Although no equivalent college case exists yet, Gaston-Falk emphasized that universities may discipline off-campus speech only when it crosses into categories such as harassment or cyberbullying, which are likely to disrupt the campus environment.
D. Institutional Reputation and Censorship Rationales
Universities rarely admit that reputational concerns motivate their student press content decisions. Instead, they frame restrictions as promoting accuracy, objectivity, or community well-being. Yet courts have consistently rejected “making the school look bad” as a valid basis for censoring student journalism.
Gaston-Falk underscored this point: “We don't believe that making the school look bad is ever a reasonable reason or justification for censorship.” Even under Hazelwood’s deferential standard, administrators must point to an actual educational justification. That principle guided the federal district court in Dean v. Utica, where a principal prohibited coverage of a community lawsuit alleging harmful emissions from school buses. [6] The judge found the censorship “indefensible,” emphasizing that the students’ reporting was thorough, ethical, and fully consistent with the First Amendment’s core purpose of holding public officials accountable.
This case illustrates a persistent truth across jurisdictions: when censorship masks reputational discomfort, it rarely withstands legal scrutiny.
Across public and private campuses, student media now operates at the intersection of the evolving First Amendment doctrine, expanding digital platforms, and growing institutional sensitivity to reputation. As universities face financial pressures, public scrutiny, and changing communication norms, student journalists increasingly confront administrative control that the law has not fully resolved. The cases and conflicts shaping this landscape demonstrate that the core purpose of the First Amendment remains unchanged: to ensure that those in power can be held accountable. As Gaston-Falk’s insights make clear, attempts to suppress student reporting for image-management or convenience undermine that constitutional function and put institutions on precarious legal ground. The future of student media will depend on whether universities embrace transparency and independence or continue to test the limits of their authority. This unresolved tension will only grow more significant as campus journalism assumes a larger role in public discourse.
Notes:
[1] “First Amendment Activities: Tinker v. Des Moines: Facts and Case Summary,” United States Courts https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-activities/tinker-v-des-moines/facts-and-case-summary-tinker-v-des-moines.
[2] “First Amendment Activities: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier: Facts and Case Summary,” United States Courts https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-activities/hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier/facts-and-case-summary-hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier.
[3] “Meet the Student Press Law Center Staff,” Student Press Law Center, https://splc.org/staff/. Student Press Law Center
[4] “Hosty v. Carter (7th Cir.),” First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/hosty-v-carter-7th-cir/. The Free Speech Center+1
[5] “United States — Oyez: Case No. 20-255,” Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-255.
[6] “Dean v. Utica Community Schools (E.D. Mich. 2004),” First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University, January 1, 2009 https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/dean-v-utica-community-schools-e-d-mich/. The Free Speech Center
[7] Jonathan Gaston-Falk, interview by Hannah Brooker, Northwestern Undergraduate Law Journal, Nov. 10th, 2025
Bibliography:
“Court Releases Opinion on Utica High School Censorship Case,” Student Press Law Center, November 2004, https://splc.org/2004/11/dean-v-utica-community-schools/. Student Press Law Center+1
“Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Behalf of Student Expression: Tinker v. Des Moines,” ACLU, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.aclu.org/documents/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-student-expression.
Louis M. Benedict, “The First Amendment and College Student Newspapers: Applying Hazelwood to Colleges and Universities,” Journal of College & University Law 33, no. 2 (2007): 247, https://www.nacua.org/docs/default‑source/jcul‑articles/volume33/33_jcul_245.pdf.
Student Press Law Center, *2023-2024 Annual Report: On the Front Lines of Press Freedom* (Washington, DC: Student Press Law Center, August 2024), 3, https://splc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/SPLC-Annual-Report-2023-2024.1.pdf.
“United States – Oyez: Case No. 20-255,” Oyez, accessed November 14, 2025,https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-255.