Brief Summary of the case
The case of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) involved students in the Journalism II class at the Hazelwood East High School located in St. Louis, Missouri. The students authored an article under the topic of peer experience with an aspect to teen pregnancy and the associated effects of divorce on the lives of students. The students edited and published the article as part of their school curriculum. In pursuant to the schools publishing practices, the article was forwarded to the school head for his perusal and final approval for publishing. From his analysis, he objected to the subject of teen pregnancy and divorce which appeared in the article and directed that part to be deleted (Golub, 1988). The school had argued that the content of the article that referenced sexual topics and birth control issues were not fitting to some of the younger students and that the article featured some sensitive information that was not fully supported by the school’s appropriate publishing conduct. Because the school head believed that there was not enough time to make adjustments on the content of the article, he opted to delete the sections touching on teen pregnancy and the effects of divorce. The journalism students felt the principal violated their First Amendment Right regarding the freedom of speech and pursued to challenge the principal’s actions in the District Court (Golub, 1988).
Case Progression
The case Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) progressed through three different courts. The first court was U.S District Court located in the Eastern District of Missouri in St. Louis, after the district court’s ruling, the students sought to appeal the ruling in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Court of Appeals challenged the district court’s ruling arguing that the article was a public forum which to them integrated public interest and extended beyond the school’s jurisdiction (Golub, 1988). The school then opted to challenge the decision by the U.S Court of Appeals in the U.S Supreme Court which overturned the ruling of the Court of Appeals on the grounds that the action of the school’s principal did not infringe the First Amendment regarding the rights and freedom speech of the students. In other words, the school had all the rights and legitimate interests to remove or alter the content of the article that the school found inappropriate and would be imprimatur of the school.
First Court: The U.S District Court
The case brought before the U.S District Court concerns the extent to which school heads may employ their editorial powers and authority in the school journalism class newspaper authored as part of the school curriculum for the journalism class. The students believed that the institution infringed on their First Amendment Rights on free speech through their action of deleting two pages of content of the article regarding student’s familiarities with the issue of adolescent pregnancy and the overarching effects of divorce. They sought to challenge the action of the school in the District Court (Golub, 1988). In the court, Justice White conveyed the court’s judgment.
The petitioners, in this case, included the following parties:
1. Hazelwood School District

2. School heads:
a) Robert Eugene Reynolds- the school principal
b) Howard Emerson
The respondents of the case included the following parties:
1. Three former students of Hazelwood East
District Court’s opinion and ruling
The school newspaper commonly named Spectrum was inscribed and authored by the students in the Journalism II class at Hazelwood East. The Spectrum was printed and distributed every 3-weeks based on the budget allocated by the school and subject to the proof and review of the content of the article by the school principal (Robert Eugene Reynolds) before it is published (Golub, 1988). Following closer review and analysis of the content of the article submitted to the principal, the principal found some stories touching on student’s familiarities with teen pregnancy and impact of divorce on students at school inappropriate and directed Emerson- the newspaper advisor to delete the two pages featuring the highlighted issues. They subsequently objected the actions of the school to delete the two pages with the highlighted contents and opted to file the case in the U.S District Court on the grounds of the violation of their rights to free speech. They sought for injunction relief and damages in monetary terms (Golub, 1988).
The case underwent an injunctive trial in the District Court. However, the District Court denied an injunction on the grounds that the action of the school principal to delete the two pages they deemed inappropriate was not a desecration of the First Amendment. The District Court’s opinion held that the officials of the institution had the rights and the powers to impose any restraint on the student’s opinion and speech especially in activities that are considered central to the school’s education priorities and functions which would include but not limited to the printing of the school-sponsored newspaper (Golub, 1988). The court also held that the decision of the principal had a significant and reasonable basis. In this case, the school principal was justified in deleting the pages with the contents he deemed inappropriate. The students sought to challenge the resolution of the District Court in the Court of Appeals.
Second Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Following the verdict of the U.S District Court, the students opted to appeal in the U.S Court of Appeals on the grounds that the District Court did not give a substantial and reasonable ruling. However, the U.S Court of Appeals upended the ruling by the District Court on the grounds that the school newspaper was both a fragment of the embraced curriculum by the school and also the newspaper contents deleted was subject to the public forum since the newspaper was subject to student’s viewpoint (Golub, 1988). The U.S Court of Appeals further argued that the school newspaper had a status of the public forum and this made it preclude school heads from altering its subjects unless deemed obligatory to avoid any subsequent meddling with the school activities which in this case did not seem to be the case. The Court of Appeals also established no proof in the records that proved that the school principle forecast of the inappropriateness of the contents of the article could have any impact on the students or would disrupt the student’s or schools’ class activities which would cause substantial disorder in the school. As such the U.S Court of Appeals overturned the ruling of the District Court (Golub, 1988).
The U.S Court of Appeals further concluded that the school officials would only have a justification to alter or modify the contents of the article on the grounds that it violated the rights of others. However, according to the Court of Appeals the decision of the principle would only be justified if without any reasonable doubt, the publication of the newspaper would create a tort obligation to the school which according to the court, there was no evidence of tort action or even a libel or any form of invasion of privacy (Golub, 1988). As a result, the U.S Court of Appeals resolved that the action of the institution violated the student’s First Amendment Rights on freedom of speech through their action of deleting the two pages of their article.
The third Court: The U.S Supreme Court
The school sought to challenge the verdict by the U.S Court of Appeals in the Supreme Court on the grounds that the school had the rights to control the contents published on the school newspaper and that the aspect of public forum do not apply in the said context. According to the Supreme Court, the schools do not have the possession of the attributes that qualifies them to be called a forum of public expression like in the case of public parks, streets, and other traditional public forums. However, the Supreme Court held that schools can only qualify to be termed public forums only if by either procedure or preparation the authorities of the school opened the school for unselective use by the public (Golub, 1988). Nonetheless, the schools are reserved for other intended roles which in this case make them a no public forum. Thus, the school leadership has the rights to impose any restraint which is reasonable on the action including rights to speech of the students and teachers as well as other members of the school community. The U.S Supreme Court also referred to the ruling by the District Court and held that the school heads had the authority and the power to exercise authority over the contents published in the institution’s newspaper. As such, the finding of the Court of Appeal that the deleted content was subject to public forum was ambivalent and equivocal. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling by the Court of Appeals and affirmed the ruling by the District Court (Golub, 1988).

References
Golub, S. (1988). Tinker to Fraser to Hazelwood-Supreme Court’s Double Play Combination Defeats High School Students’ Rally for First Amendment Rights: Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier. DePaul L. Rev., 38, 487.