If you’re a student journalist — or someone who works with them — here are two important facts you probably know:
First, in its 1988 decision Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly restricted the First Amendment rights of most high school student journalists working on school-sponsored media.
Second, in response, a growing number of states have stepped up to protect student press freedom. As of now, 18 states have passed legislation known as New Voices laws. In addition, at least two jurisdictions — Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia — have enacted regulations, and numerous local school districts have adopted policies designed to limit the power of school officials to censor student media. (You can find an up-to-date list and more information at splc.org/new-voices.)
These New Voices laws — originally simply called “anti-Hazelwood laws” — have successfully curbed censorship and restored vital free expression rights to students who rely on them. Essentially, these laws give back to students much of the same press freedom that existed during the two decades before Hazelwood.
Still, one big question often comes up: How can a state law or local school policy “override” a U.S. Supreme Court decision like Hazelwood?
The short answer: They don’t override it — they operate independently.
Here’s why:
Hazelwood was a First Amendment case. It was a case brought in federal courts interpreting the U.S. Constitution’s free speech and press protections. Think of the First Amendment as establishing the minimum level of free speech protection nationwide — a legal “floor” below which no government official or law may go. For instance, a public high school principal can’t create a policy allowing them to stop publication of stories just because they disagree with the content. The First Amendment — as interpreted in Hazelwood — requires more justification than mere personal disagreement.
However, while Hazelwood sets the minimum protections required under the First Amendment, nothing prevents lawmakers from providing greater protection for student journalists. States can pass laws — and local school boards can adopt policies — that give student media more rights than those recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In other words, Hazelwood and the First Amendment establish the ground floor, but state laws and local policies can raise the ceiling, creating a higher standard of protection for free expression.
Take Kansas, for example. Student journalists there are protected by both the federal First Amendment and the Kansas Student Publications Act. Because the First Amendment — post-Hazelwood — provides limited protection against certain types of administrative censorship, Kansas students can look to their state law for stronger safeguards. As a result, Kansas school officials whose actions might technically comply with Hazelwood still have to be careful, because state law allows censorship only in narrowly defined situations where student journalists cross clear legal boundaries.
Hazelwood has taken a heavy toll on many high school journalism programs, leaving a generation of students with a distorted sense of the role of free speech and a free press in American democracy. New Voices laws — and strong local policies — provide students and journalism educators with powerful tools to push back and reclaim the essential freedoms that a healthy democracy demands.