Pennsylvania Supreme Court sides with student who was expelled over school shooter meme

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled school administrators erred when they expelled a student for making memes that ridiculed another student as a school shooter. The court criticized administrators for not taking the context and intent of the student who made the meme into consideration.

Key Players

The expelled high school junior, identified in court documents only as J.S., was a student at Manheim Township High School before his expulsion.

Student One is an unidentified student whom J.S. sent his memes to. According to the attorney for the school district, Student One felt “terrorized” by the memes, which played a large part in the decision to expel J.S.

Student Two is an unidentified student who was mocked by J.S.

Manheim Township School District, in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, has a public school population of about 6,000 students.  

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the highest legal authority in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.   

Further Details

In April 2018, during a conversation on social media, J.S. told Student One that Student Two looked like a school shooter because of his long hair and frequent wearing of his  T-shirt depicting Cannibal Corpse, a death metal band, according to court documents.

J.S. then privately sent two Snapchat memes to Student One, making fun of Student Two. The first showed Student Two singing into a microphone with the words, “I’m shooting up the school this week, I can’t take it anymore I’m DONE!” The second was a video meme with guitar music that depicted Student Two singing Cannibal Corpse lyrics about eating children. 

Student One responded to these messages by writing, “LOL,” subsequently posting the first meme on his Snapchat story, where it could be viewed by other friends. Within five minutes, J.S. asked Student One to take down the story, which he did. But ABC News reported that one of the 20 to 40 recipients of the meme showed it to his parents, one of whom was a district employee. The parent then sent the meme to the principal, who forwarded it to the superintendent and police. 

On April 11, 2018, police went to J.S.’s house to interview him and his parents. They determined there was no threat to school safety and that school could be held that day. 

However, the superintendent sent an email to students and parents that a threat had been posted on social media, but that the students were safe, according to the lawsuit.  

J.S. and his parents were also interviewed by the school. J.S. told administrators that his memes were intended to be funny and private. But the next day, they suspended J.S. for three days under the district terroristic threat policy, which is defined in the lawsuit as “a threat to commit violence communicated with the intent to terrorize another … or to cause serious public inconvenience, in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.” 

On April 16, 2018, the school obtained the video meme and extended the suspension to 10 days, this time for violating the school’s policy against cyberbullying.

On May 3, 2018, a hearing to determine further punishment was held with a three-member committee. The school district introduced testimony claiming that Student One had posted the memes to his Snapchat story, because he felt terrorized and wanted to alert others. However, Student One did not report any concern to his parents, police, or school administrators about the memes.

Nevertheless, on May 11, 2018, the committee recommended that J.S. be permanently expelled. Appealing the decision to the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, J.S. argued he was denied due process because he could not cross-examine Student One during the hearing, and that the expulsion was made without any substantial evidence, according to the suit. 

Outcome 

 Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules in favor of J.S.

On Nov. 17, 2021, in a 6-1 decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that school district officials had acted “outside the scope of their authority” in expelling J.S., the Pennsylvania Record reported. 

The justices felt the school did not consider the context of the messages. 

“While mean-spirited, sophomoric, inartful, misguided and crude,” the court stated, “in our view, J.S.’s memes were plainly not intended to threaten Student One, Student Two or any other person, and they certainly were not perceived as threatening by the sole recipient, Student One, whose mild reactions to the communication further support the conclusion that there was a lack of any intent on the part of J.S. to threaten.”

The court also found that not allowing J.S. to cross-examine Student One violated his due process rights, as the importance of Student One’s testimony meant J.S. should have been able to confront him about potential inconsistencies. 

The lone dissenter 

Justice Kevin M. Dougherty dissented from the decision, stating that because J.S. had already graduated and was attending college, his case was irrelevant “since a school’s power to suspend or expel is limited to ‘any pupil on account of disobedience or misconduct,’ it necessarily follows that the school has no authority to retroactively seek to punish an individual, like J.S., who is a former pupil, but not a current one.”

J.S.’s attorney reacts to the decision 

Lorrie McKinley, the attorney for J.S., said, “Of course we don’t want people making false threats, but that isn’t what happened,” adding, “his mother said it best at the hearing. I mean, it’s impacted his career choices, it impacted him pretty much in every way.”

Manheim School District calls the decision ‘disappointing’

ShaiQuana Mitchell, spokesperson for Manheim Township School District, released a statement that the district was disappointed in the decision, saying it “will continue to be vigilant in our response to any and all safety concerns brought to us by our school community. We will apply the information gained from the ruling to any similar future expulsion cases should they occur.”