Whether Hazelwood applies when student speech might be erroneously attributed to the school, in the context of student-led clubs and flyer distribution

Noblesville High School freshman E.D. worked hard to bring Noblesville Students for Life (NSFL) and its life-affirming message to her school. She took a summer job to fund its launch, secured an adviser, and met with her principal. At least initially, the principal approved NSFL as one of the school’s many student-interest clubs, which are “student-driven and student-led,” and not school-sponsored. App.29a–30a. These noncurricular clubs could hang flyers in school common areas to promote non-school meetings and events; no written po licy governed the flyers’ content. Yet when E.D. asked for permission to post flyers advertising the first NSFL meeting, the school said no because the flyers contained a picture of stu-dents holding “Defund Planned Parenthood” signs. The school then revoked NSFL’s recognition. The Seventh Circuit upheld the school’s censorship under Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier , 484 U.S. 260 (1988), on the theory that a “reasonable observer could easily conclude that the flyers reflected the school’s endorsement.” App.13a. In so doing, it exacerbated a deep , longstanding circuit split over when Hazelwood ’s reduced speech protection applies. The question presented is: Whether Hazelwood applies (1) whenever student speech might be erroneously attributed to the school, as the Fifth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have held; (2) when student speech occurs in the context of an “organized and structured educational activity,” as the Third Circuit has held; or (3) only when student speech is part of the “cu rriculum,” as the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits have held.