The Supreme Court reversed, noting that the paper was established by school officials as a limited forum for the purpose of a supervised journalism class, and could be censored even though similar speech in an off-campus or independent student newspaper would be protected.

[4][5] The case concerned The Spectrum, a student newspaper published as part of a Journalism II class at Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis County, Missouri.

The cost of printing the paper, as well as supplies, textbooks, and a portion of the academic advisor's salary, were furnished by the district's board of education, supplemented by newspaper sales.

For that school year, the board supplied $4,668 in printing costs, and Howard Emerson, the adviser to the journalism class, submitted page proofs of the May 13 issue of the newspaper to principal Robert Eugene Reynolds for approval, a practice that was customary at the time.

[13] In response, editor Cathy Kuhlmeier and reporters Leslie Smart and Leanne Tippett filed suit in January 1984[12] with the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union.

However, with the rise of the counterculture of the 1960s, student publications began to explore social issues with greater fervor, focusing on the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, sexual orientation, and other topics considered controversial at the time.

[14] In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (393 U.S. 503) that students' freedom of expression is protected under the First Amendment.

Whenever an instance of censorship involved action by a government employee, such as a school principal or a college dean, the courts held that First Amendment safeguards applied.

[14][15] Under the Tinker precedent, courts recognized student newspapers as public forums in which expression could be restricted only if administrators could prove that substantial disruption of school activities was imminent.

The newspaper was "intended to be and operated as a conduit for student viewpoint",[21] the appeals court found, and as a public forum, it could not be censored unless "necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with school work or discipline ... or the rights of others ".

[22] Its majority opinion set a precedent that school-sponsored activities, including student newspapers and drama productions, are not normally protected from administrative censorship under the First Amendment.

White went on to say that educators do not infringe on First Amendment rights when exercising control over student speech in school-sponsored activities, "so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns".

In his opinion, Brennan expressed concern about the message the majority ruling would send to students, writing:[23] The young men and women of Hazelwood East expected a civics lesson, but not the one the Court teaches them today ...

[16] This means schools may exercise prior restraint regarding the "style and content" of a student newspaper so long as their action is "not unreasonable", whereas there previously had to be compelling evidence to warrant censorship.

[34] In 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in Kincaid v. Gibson (236 F. 3d 342) that Kuhlmeier did not apply at the college level,[34] and that a student publication could not be censored if the censorship was not viewpoint-neutral.

[20] A 2005 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decision, Hosty v. Carter (412 U.S. 731), however, held that Kuhlmeier did apply to subsidized student media at the college level.