The mother of a Missouri high school student filed a lawsuit against the Mountain View-Birch Tree R-III School District, claiming the school violated her son’s First Amendment rights after suspending him over a Snapchat post made off campus. Wyatt Grunden, 14, was suspended for three days after posting an image on Snapchat that showed Dr. Pepper cans glued together to resemble an AK-47. The post also featured a song titled “AK-47” added through the app’s music feature.
According to the lawsuit, the district searched Wyatt upon his return to school despite admitting it found no credible evidence of a threat.
“They told me it was cyberbullying and threatening the school,” his mother, Riley Grunden, said. “That would be on his record.”
Legal team argues First Amendment rights
The lawsuit, filed by the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute’s American Freedom Network, argues that Wyatt’s off-campus speech is protected under the U.S. Constitution. It claims the district overstepped its authority by disciplining a student for private, non-school-related social media activity.
“If he had sent out a threat or any kind of message with that photo, that would be different,” Riley Grunden said. “But he didn’t. We don’t just let him do whatever he wants.”
District declines to comment
In a statement sent to Straight Arrow News, the district acknowledged the lawsuit but declined to comment in detail.
“The school district is aware of the lawsuit that was recently filed,” the statement read. “Unfortunately, because the lawsuit involves a student, we are significantly limited in what we are legally permitted to share publicly. For now, we can only say that we have legal counsel who will present our side of the story and defend against these allegations.”
Precedent protecting students’ off-campus speech
Greg Magarian, a constitutional law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said the case is similar to Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled in favor of a student punished for posting profane messages about her school on social media while off campus.
“The court did not establish a hard line saying schools can never regulate off-campus speech,” Magarian said. “But they made clear the limits of that authority.”
Magarian said Wyatt’s post did not involve the school, nor was it made during school hours or on school grounds. This is unlike Tinker v. Des Moines, where students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. This incident happened on school property, but the nation’s highest court still ruled in favor of the students.
“(Students) do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” the landmark case declared, opening the door for students’ First Amendment rights as long as the speech does not “materially and substantially disrupt” school operations.
“It was a student posting on their own account on their own time,” Magarian said. “The only way school officials learned about it was that a parent saw the Snapchat and contacted them.”
While Magarian said he sympathizes with school officials who must act cautiously in a time of increased concern about school violence, he believes the First Amendment challenge is strong.
“We see a gun, we suspend the kid — I don’t think that rationale holds up here,” he said.
Riley Grunden said her primary concern is the long-term impact of the suspension on her son’s record.
“Wyatt is 14. If this stays on his record, he couldn’t join the military or become a police officer,” she said. “It will follow him for the rest of his life.”
The case remains pending.
