Law & Courts

Appeals Court Backs School in Anti-Abortion Club’s Flyer Dispute

By Mark Walsh — August 15, 2025 3 min read
Students for Life of America hold a rally at Supreme Court with multiple members of Congress the night before the court is hearing Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Nov. 30, 2021.
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

A federal appeals court has upheld an Indiana school district’s decision to limit the scope of flyers that a “Students for Life” club could post on school walls to only time and place details for meetings, excluding broader anti-abortion messaging.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Chicago, rejected a claim on behalf of the club’s founder, a 9th grader at Noblesville High School, that the school’s decision violated her First Amendment free speech rights.

“This is not a case about tolerating private student speech,” the court said in its Aug. 14 decision in E.D. v. Noblesville School District. “Instead, it is a case about whether the school must lend its resources (here, literally its walls)—and, by extension, its authority—to disseminate student messages.”

The school had a neutral restriction on the type of information that student clubs could include on flyers posted on school walls, such as the name of the club and the date, time, and location of meetings. The rule applied to roughly 70 student clubs, which included Young Republicans, Young Democrats, a Gender and Sexuality Alliance, and a Black Student Union.

That policy passed muster under a key U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows school administrators to regulate messages that might be interpreted as coming from the school, the 7th Circuit panel said.

“Excluding political content, in particular, serves the pedagogical goal of maintaining neutrality on matters of political controversy,” said Judge Nancy L. Maldonado, a President Joe Biden appointee.

Flyer templates provided by a national anti-abortion group

The case involves a student identified in court papers as E.D., who entered Noblesville High in 2021 with a goal of forming a student chapter of Students for Life of America, a national anti-abortion group.

The student raised money, found a faculty adviser, and got the high school principal to approve the club. E.D. emailed the assistant principal two templates for flyers offered by the national group, which said, “Pro-life students, it’s time to meet up!” and included stock photos of young people holding signs that said “I am the pro-life generation” and “Defund Planned Parenthood.”

The assistant principal replied that those flyers would violate the school’s guidelines. Club members could discuss those statements at meetings, but the flyers could not be posted on school walls, she said.

The student and her mother later met with the dean of students to raise the issue again. That meeting prompted the principal and assistant principal to conclude E.D. was circumventing the earlier decision, and that her mother was improperly involved in a student-run club.

The principal suspended the Students for Life club, but reinstated it a few months later at the start of the second semester. That action led to a separate claim in E.D.’s lawsuit, which the 7th Circuit rejected.

The principal did not base the suspension on the club’s views, the court said, but on his conclusion that E.D. had sought to bypass the assistant principal’s decision and because the involvement of her mother was inappropriate.

Seen are the flyer templates from Students for Life of America (SFLA) that are included in the E.D. vs Nobelsville School District, after the school refused to let the student distribute as part of recruiting for a pro-life club on school campus.

Flyers have ‘a literal stamp of approval’ of a school official

As for the flyers, the 7th Circuit analyzed the case under the Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. In that case, the court upheld a school administrator’s decision to remove stories on teen pregnancy and divorce from a high school newspaper, ruling that school officials could exercise editorial control over student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities as long as their actions were “related to reasonable pedagogical concerns.”

Maldonado said because E.D. sought to display her flyers on school walls and bulletin boards where other school-sponsored messages appear, “they could reasonably be perceived as bearing the school’s imprimatur.”

Every student flyer at the school “must bear a faculty member’s initials for approval—a literal stamp of the school’s authority,” the judge said.

The school’s rule barring political messages was related to reasonable pedagogical concerns, she said.

“Flyers promoting a polarizing political slogan (‘Defund Planned Parenthood’) and bearing an administrator’s initials alongside school-sponsored postings could mislead observers into thinking the school endorses that view,” Maldonado said.

Events

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts What Schools Need to Know About the Supreme Court’s Transgender Sports Ruling
The justices upheld two state laws that bar transgender girls from participating in female sports.
10 min read
A group prays outside of the Supreme Court ahead of the court's ruling on whether transgender girls and women can play on school athletic teams, on June 30, 2026, on Capitol Hill in Washington.
A group prays outside of the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of the court's ruling on whether transgender girls and women can play on school athletic teams, on June 30, 2026, in Washington. The court upheld two state laws barring transgender girls from joining girls' school sports teams.
Jose Luis Magana/AP
Law & Courts Judges Strike Down Trump Admin.'s Student Loan Forgiveness Overhaul
Two judges sided with advocates who said the program risked becoming a tool for political retribution.
3 min read
In this May 5, 2018, file photo, graduates at the University of Toledo commencement ceremony in Toledo, Ohio.
Graduates at the University of Toledo commencement ceremony in Toledo, Ohio, on May 5, 2018. Two judges have ruled against the Trump administration's overhaul of a public service loan forgiveness program for which teachers have qualified.
Carlos Osorio/AP
Law & Courts Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship, Rejecting Trump's Proposed Limits
The justices relied on the 14th Amendment and federal law to rule that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen.
4 min read
Members of the Supreme Court sit for a group portrait in Washington, Oct. 7, 2022. Bottom row, from left, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Elena Kagan. Top row, from left, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The Supreme Court justices will take the bench Monday, July 1, 2024, to release their last few opinions of the term, including their most closely watched case: whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution.
Members of the Supreme Court sit for a group portrait in Washington, Oct. 7, 2022. Bottom row, from left, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Elena Kagan. Top row, from left, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The high court, on June 30, 2026, rejected President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Law & Courts States Can Ban Transgender Athletes, Supreme Court Decides
The court ruled that state bans in Idaho and West Virginia don’t violate the Constitution or Title IX.
3 min read
People advocate for a ban on transgender women and girls participating in women's and girls' sports outside the U.S. Supreme Court building as the court announced decisions in Washington, on June 29, 2026.
People advocate for a ban on transgender women and girls participating in women's and girls' sports outside the U.S. Supreme Court building as the court announced decisions in Washington, on June 29, 2026. The Supreme Court ruled on June 30, 2026, that states may enforce laws restricting transgender athletes’ participation on girls’ and women’s sports teams.
Francis Chung/Politico via AP