California court rules school district violated New Voices law’s adviser protection provision when they reassigned adviser for student newspaper’s lawful content
MEDIA CONTACT: media@splc.org
In a major win for student journalists and a warning to school administrators, a California court found this week that San Francisco’s Lowell High School violated the state’s New Voices law when they reassigned the school’s journalism adviser solely because of his students’ reporting.
The court ordered the San Francisco United School District to restore Eric Gustafson to his former role as journalism teacher and adviser within 30 days.
The decision is the first known test of California’s adviser-protection provision since it took effect in 2009.
“These efforts to silence student voices are exactly what New Voices laws are meant to stop,” said Gary Green, executive director of the Student Press Law Center. Green further reinforced that Gustafson’s victory sends a powerful signal to advisers and student journalists across California.
“When administrators can punish a journalism adviser because students publish uncomfortable truths, that doesn’t just harm the educator; it chills an entire newsroom,” Green said. “This ruling makes clear that California’s student press freedom law has real teeth, and that student journalism is not a punishable offense.”
Not an isolated problem
The Lowell case reflects a broader pattern of retaliation against student media advisers. In California — and in the 17 other states with legislation protecting student press freedom — New Voices laws serve as a powerful check against censorship and intimidation.
California Education Code § 48907, first passed in 1977, was the nation’s first law to ensure that student editors determine the content of school-sponsored student media.
The Student Press Law Center and others advocate for similar laws in every state in response to a 1988 Supreme Court ruling in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which gave administrators broad power to censor student journalists.
Mike Hiestand, SPLC’s senior legal counsel, said that as more states rejected Hazelwood and added protections for students, New Voices advocates realized that administrators were undermining the laws by retaliating against the students’ advisers.
“In my 30-plus years at the Student Press Law Center, I have watched way too many talented, dedicated journalism advisers targeted and their careers harmed. Many of them in California,” Hiestand said. “This indirect censorship can destroy a student journalism program and silence student voices, and that’s why states like California added provisions that protect advisers from retaliation.”
Other recent adviser-retaliation cases in California include:
- An ongoing lawsuit in nearby Santa Clara County accuses administrators at Mountain View High School of “bullying, threatening and coerc[ing]” the student newspaper staff and then retaliating by cutting a journalism class and removing the adviser.
- In 2024, Sacramento City Unified School District put the C.K. McClatchy High School adviser on paid leave after student editors quoted another student praising Adolf Hitler. The district denied the suspension was connected to the quote.
- In 2022, the Los Angeles Unified School District dropped long-discussed disciplinary proceedings against the Daniel Pearl Magnet High School journalism adviser for refusing to censor her students’ reporting on the COVID pandemic’s effect on their school.
Hiestand emphasized how unnecessary and detrimental the LHS case was.
“Think about how much money the district wasted defending this case,” he said. “Think about how the journalism program and the students’ education was disrupted because Mr. Gustafson — rated an ‘outstanding’ teacher before this whole mess — was kicked out of the newsroom when students practiced journalism the school didn’t care for.”
The Student Press Law Center urges school districts to review their student media policies immediately, train administrators on student press freedoms and protections, and commit publicly to a student reporting culture where student journalists can report without fear and advisers can teach without intimidation.
For students, educators and administrators in a state with an existing New Voices law, learn more about how it impacts you here. Learn more about bringing the New Voices movement to your state here.
SPLC’s School District Advocacy Toolkit helps stakeholders adopt strong district policies regardless of state law.
District’s motive matters
In another important aspect of the decision, the court also declined the district’s attempt to read § 48907 in a way that Hiestand said would make it almost meaningless.
The district had argued that if it could provide the court any lawful rationale to justify Gustafson’s reassignment, the court did not need to consider the administrators’ true motive at the time Gustafson was removed.
The court rejected that assertion, holding that “§ 48907 expressly calls for an evaluation of motive, and it is motive that distinguishes a lawful act from an unlawful one under the statute.”
More about the case
In March 2025, LHS Principal Jan Bautista told Gustafson, journalism adviser at the school since 2017, that he would be reassigned to English classes as of the 2025-2026 academic year, according to the facts laid out in the court’s decision.
The district told the court that the quality of The Lowell newspaper had declined and they sought to replace Gustafson with another teacher with more journalism experience and education. Gustafson was ultimately replaced by a teacher with a master’s degree in journalism but no professional reporting experience.
The court found that the “changing nature” of the district’s “post-hoc explanations for the reassignment are not credible.”
Bautista had told Gustafson in March 2025 that the action was because of specific student reporting that had drawn administrators’ attention. In a deposition for the lawsuit, she did not deny — and seemed to confirm — that the articles were a factor in the decision.
Over the previous two years, administrators had asked to review — prior to publication — stories about:
- increased drug use by LHS students;
- reports of verbal harassment by LHS teachers; and
- teachers’ rumored use of artificial intelligence to grade student assignments.
As California law requires, Gustafson deferred to his student editors, who declined to submit the stories for prior review. The AI story, which was in progress just before Gustafson’s reassignment, ultimately was not published.
The student staff condemned Gustafson’s removal, which they said “brings no benefit to the journalism program and, we believe, signifies a step towards limiting student voices in our publication.”
Gustafson sued the school district in June, arguing that the reassignment violated § 48907.
In her decision, Judge Christine Van Aken agreed and ordered the district to restore Gustafson to his roles as journalism teacher and The Lowell adviser within 30 days.
“The court concludes that the motivation for [the district’s] reassignment decision was to impact the editorial content of The Lowell in a way that they could not accomplish directly,” Judge Aken wrote.
A district spokesperson told the San Francisco Chronicle that the district was working with their legal counsel to evaluate their next steps and would “be sure to keep students informed of any updates.”
About the Student Press Law Center: The Student Press Law Center is the nation’s only legal organization devoted exclusively to defending and advancing the free press rights of student journalists. Since 1974, we have helped students and their educators navigate the law, strengthen their reporting and stand up for press freedom. Our legal support, education and advocacy empower student journalists to report freely and courageously. SPLC powers the student-led, nonpartisan New Voices movement that works to end censorship of student media by passing state laws that protect students’ right to report freely.