Editor’s note: Publication of this story was delayed while The Budget sought clarity that our faculty adviser would not face consequences for supporting lawful student reporting. In an Aug. 19 order, a federal judge highlighted state-law protections that bar adverse employment action against student-publication advisers for refusing to abridge student press rights.
A federal lawsuit, filed Aug. 1, challenges USD 497’s adoption of the Gaggle monitoring program, alleging that since November 2023, the District has subjected all students’ District-managed Google accounts to round-the-clock scanning and flagging without individualized suspicion, with initial review by Gaggle contractors and removals of student content, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. The complaint cites instances where art and journalism students’ work was flagged and seized, and student-press work product was subjected to prior review and restraint; the Board later voted on July 8, 2024, to renew the Gaggle contract despite plaintiff’s counsel’s May 31 cease-and-desist demand letter and a June 17 District response refusing that demand. Plaintiffs A.T. and P.M. seek declaratory and injunctive relief and damages under the First and Fourth Amendments.
On Aug. 19, U.S. District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil denied an ex parte temporary restraining order but noted two things relevant to student journalists at Lawrence High School: (1) the district had rescinded a publication ban; and (2) Kansas law protects journalism advisers from adverse action for standing by the student press. The court deferred the request for a preliminary injunction until the district is served and responds.
Plaintiffs had squarely put those adviser-protection issues before the court. In their filings, they sought an order forbidding any adverse employment action against the journalism adviser and preserving the status quo of her employment.
According to the motion papers and declaration excerpts filed with the court, LHS Principal Quentin Rials, himself an attorney, had issued a directive barring The Budget and its student reporters from covering the lawsuit, and the adviser conveyed that directive to student journalism staff on the morning of Aug. 14. After Rials issued the directive, a person the adviser understood to be a district administrator reiterated by telephone that neither The Budget nor its student reporters could report on the lawsuit.
That afternoon, attorney Brad Finkeldei—communicating on the district’s behalf—confirmed that principal Rials issued a directive prohibiting The Budget from reporting on the lawsuit, that directive had been lifted and that The Budget was “free to write on this lawsuit without restriction,” a point memorialized in Exhibit A of plaintiffs’ filing.
On Aug. 15, however, a teacher’s union representative cautioned the student editor about potential consequences to the adviser’s employment if the story ran, which the filings describe as chilling publication. The adviser had already been called for a meeting with administration that morning.
Later that day, district leadership delivered a written memo to the adviser titled “Clarification of expectations.” District counsel informed chambers that Superintendent Jeanice Swift and Deputy Superintendent Larry Englebrick prepared the memo, went to LHS, and instructed Principal Quentin Rials to sign it. The memo said that “no school or district official will prohibit, delay, condition or otherwise restrain any student journalist or journalism adviser from lawful reporting on any subject going forward,” and noted that district staff would not comment on Gaggle because of ongoing litigation.
That written assurance in the “Clarification of expectations” memo contradicted what Rials and the purported district administrator had told the adviser prior to the start of classes, and echoed district counsel’s confirmation the prior afternoon that student journalists were free to report without limitation.
With (1) the district’s written assurance that no official will restrict lawful student reporting and (2) the court’s recognition that Kansas law protects a student-publication adviser from adverse employment action for refusing to infringe student expression, The Budget is publishing this story. The court’s order followed plaintiffs’ emergency motion that put adviser-protection and anti-retaliation issues squarely before the court.
What’s next: The court deferred the preliminary-injunction request until defendants appear; plaintiffs have asked for an expedited hearing and told chambers they’re prepared to present evidence—including live testimony—as the Court prefers. The Budget will continue reporting based on public records and what happens in court.
