Law & Courts

Justices Decline Appeal Over Student’s Online Threat

By Mark Walsh — April 03, 2008 2 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

Includes updates and/or revisions.

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review the case of an 8th grader who was suspended for an off-campus Internet message with a drawing that suggested a teacher should be shot.

The justices declined without comment on March 31 to hear the appeal of the family in Wisniewski v. Board of Education of the Weedsport Central School District (Case No. 07-987).

According to court papers, Aaron Wisniewski was a student at Weedsport Middle School in New York state in 2001 when he sent an instant message on America Online to a friend with an icon featuring a pistol firing bullets at a person’s head, with the words “Kill Mr. VanderMolen.” Philip VanderMolen was the boy’s English teacher. Aaron was suspended for one semester over the message.

The student and his parents challenged the discipline in court, arguing that the boy’s instant-messaging icon was protected by the First Amendment because it was not a true threat.

Both a federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in New York City, ruled for the school district.

The appeals court panel said in its unanimous opinion that the student’s transmission of the icon “crosses the boundary of protected speech and constitutes student conduct that poses a reasonably forseeable risk that … it would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.”

The appeals court said the fact that the student had created and transmitted the icon outside of school did not insulate him from discipline. The fact that Aaron sent the icon to 15 recipients, including some of his classmates, made it foreseeable, if not inevitable, that it would become a disruptive influence at his school, the court said.

Morse

v.

Frederick

The appeals court’s July 5 ruling came just days after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a major decision on student-speech rights last June. In Morse v. Frederick, the high court held that a “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner displayed at a school-related event by an Alaska high school student was not protected under the First Amendment. (“Ruling in ‘Bong Hits’ Case Seen as Leaving Protection for Students’ Free Speech,” July 18, 2007.)

The 2nd Circuit court, in its Wisniewski decision, took brief note of the Morse ruling and suggested that it did not offer the Weedsport student much, if any, support.

The Morse decision was the topic of a session late last month at the National School Boards Association’s Council of School Attorneys meeting in Orlando, Fla.

Despite what many observers viewed as a major legal victory for schools and administrators in exercising disciplinary authority over students, a presenter at the school lawyers’ group said Morse was “not a grand slam.”

“I don’t even think we hit a double,” Michael E. Smith, a Fresno, Calif., lawyer who represents school districts, said at the March 28 session. While there is much for schools to like in the ruling, he said, it was not as clear is it could have been in settling on a more precise legal standard for analyzing student free-speech claims.

A version of this article appeared in the April 09, 2008 edition of Education Week as Justices Decline Appeal Over Student’s Online Threat

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 Teens Drop Lawsuit Against Trump's Trans Sports Order After Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court last month upheld state bans on transgender girls in school sports.
4 min read
Two teens challenging New Hampshire's new law banning transgender girls from girls' sports teams, Parker Tirrell, third from left, and Iris Turmelle, sixth from left, pose with their families and attorneys in Concord, N.H., Aug. 19, 2024.
Parker Tirrell, third from left, and Iris Turmelle, sixth from left, pose with their families and attorneys in Concord, N.H., Aug. 19, 2024. The teens initially sued over New Hampshire's law banning transgender girls from school sports teams, and later expanded their lawsuit to challenge President Donald Trump's February 2025 executive order threatening to withhold federal funds from schools that allow transgender girls to join girls' sports teams. They've since withdrawn the legal challenge following a Supreme Court ruling allowing states to ban transgender girls from sports under Title IX.
Holly Ramer/AP
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