On the morning of October 9, 2024, “N.M.,” a sophomore at Marana High School in Marana, Arizona, was sitting next to his mother, Karalee Merrill, complaining about a poor grade he had received on an English assignment. His mom suggested he email the teacher to inquire about how to improve his grade. N.M. opened his school-issued Chromebook and began drafting the email. He was nervous emailing a teacher about his grade and struggled to come up with the right way to start, so he first typed some jokes: “Mister mister I want to date your sister” and “Skibidi toilet my grade is in the toilet.” He narrated these humorous comments to his mother as he typed, but after they both laughed, he deleted them. Then he typed: “GANG GANG GIMME A BETTER GRADE OR I SHOOT UP DA SKOOL HOMIE” and read it aloud to his mom “in a silly voice.” She didn’t find that funny and told him to delete it immediately, in case he accidentally sent it to his teacher. He deleted the message, closed the Chromebook, and went to do something else. He never did send an email to his English teacher about the assignment.
The Deleted Content Got Flagged
Within the hour, Marana High School Principal Caitlyn Kaufman and School Resource Officer Michael Abrigo called Mrs. Merrill and informed her that they were alerted to a possible threat by Gaggle—the school’s online safety management software. Gaggle monitors all of the activity on all school devices and uses AI technology to flag concerning content. This includes all keystrokes, even content that is deleted. The notification from Gaggle included a screenshot of the draft email that mentioned shooting up the school.
The terms of the district’s Chromebook device loan agreement, which parents must sign, state: “School administration can review all files, data, messages, and email at any time with or without notice. Safety features are available on the student’s device 24 hours per day, seven days a week, no matter the location of the child’s Chromebook.” (emphasis added)
N.M.’s mother explained that this was simply a joke, it was deleted, and her son had no intention of causing harm to the school. (N.M. was actively involved in the school and had the highest GPA in his class.)
“Safety features are available on the student’s device 24 hours per day, seven days a week, no matter the location of the child’s Chromebook.”
The School’s Response
After consulting with the District Assistant Superintendent, Principal Kaufman called Mrs. Merrill back and informed her that her son would be suspended from school for ten days “for using a school device to write about shooting up the school.” There would also be a hearing to determine if a longer-term suspension was appropriate. Since N.M. had “never been in trouble and was a good student typically,” Principal Kaufman said the district would recommend an 11-day suspension along with counseling. At the hearing, however, the district imposed a forty-five-day suspension with the possibility of a reduction to eleven days if N.M. completed three counseling sessions. The family appealed the punishment through the district’s administrative process (first to the school’s Executive Director and finally to the District Superintendent). All appeals ultimately reaffirmed the punishment.
The family has filed suit in the U.S. District Court of Arizona, alleging the school violated N.M.’s right to free speech and expression under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (as well as some Fourteenth Amendment due process violations related to the appeal procedure). They argue their child was engaged in a constitutionally protected activity when he typed that draft email (that was immediately deleted and never sent), and that he did not pose a credible threat to the school. The constitutional question is whether a school can discipline a student for an email drafted on a school device—but never sent—while away from school. As with most of the issues involving the online behavior of students, the answer to that question is complicated.
What Authority Do Schools Have Over Off-Campus Speech?
It has long been understood that school officials have the authority to discipline students for their on-campus speech that is threatening, vulgar, or inconsistent with school values. In Boim v. Fulton County School District (2007), for example, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there is “no First Amendment right allowing a student to knowingly make comments, whether oral or written, that reasonably could be perceived as a threat of school violence, whether general or specific, while on school property during the school day.” The generally-held standard, derived from the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), is whether the student speech substantially or materially disrupts the learning environment at school.
When it comes to off-campus student speech, however, the standards are somewhat murkier. That said, several cases have determined that off-campus speech can be addressed by schools when the speech results in—or has a significant likelihood of resulting in—a substantial disruption of the learning environment at school. Regarding potential threats specifically, however, courts have also ruled that schools need not wait for them to materialize in violence before taking action. In Morse v. Frederick (2007), Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito argued in a concurring opinion that “…due to the special features of the school environment, school officials must have greater authority to intervene before speech leads to violence. And, in most cases, Tinker’s ‘substantial disruption’ standard permits school officials to step in before actual violence erupts” (see also: Barr v. Lafon, 2008).
“…due to the special features of the school environment, school officials must have greater authority to intervene before speech leads to violence.”
In 2011, a high school senior posted threatening and vulgar rap lyrics to Facebook and YouTube that targeted two school staff members. In reviewing the case, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school which had suspended the student for 7 days: “We hold Tinker governs our analysis when a student intentionally directs at the school community speech reasonably understood by school officials to threaten, harass, and intimidate a teacher, even when such speech originated, and was disseminated, off-campus without the use of school resources” (see also: J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District [2000]).
The most recent relevant US Supreme Court case, Mahanoy v. B.L. (2021), also provides some guidance. When 14-year-old Brandi Levy didn’t make the varsity cheerleading squad as a sophomore at Mahanoy Area High School, she was upset. She did what a lot of adolescents do: she vented on social media. The caption “F*** school f*** softball f*** cheer f*** everything” appeared on Snapchat with a photo of her with her middle finger raised. The cheerleading coach found out about the post and kicked her off the team for the year. Her family sued. The lower federal court, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court all sided with the student, arguing the school had no authority to discipline for off-campus speech that did not result in a disruption at school. The unique aspect of this case, compared to others, is the student was dismissed from the cheerleading team, not suspended from school. The courts have never before endorsed the idea that students have a right to participate in extra-curricular activities (Angstadt v. Midd-West School District [2004]). Nevertheless, the “substantial disruption at school” standard persists, even in instances where the discipline does not include suspension from school.
My Thoughts
When the school was made aware of the written threat drafted in an email, they certainly had an obligation to investigate. Upon determining the nature of the situation (the student was at home, sitting next to his mother, joking around), they should have counseled the student about the inappropriate nature of such behavior and that should have been the end of it. By all available accounts, this does not appear to have been a credible threat. Nor did the student’s actions create a substantial disruption of the learning environment at school. By suspending the student for 11 days (pending a hearing to assess whether more punishment was necessary), they crossed the line from reasonable inquiry and education to excessive retribution.
Examples like this are why I am generally opposed to zero-tolerance policies. Zero tolerance policies compel school administrators to apply a specific, usually severe sanction (often suspension or expulsion) to a student who is found to have participated in some proscribed behavior. These policies originally focused on curbing weapon and drug possession at school, but in recent years they have been expanded to include other behaviors, such as threats of violence and bullying. The problem is that these policies, by definition, do not allow educators to use their discretion to handle situations outside the letter of the policy. A one-size-fits-all response frequently falls short when dealing with complex issues involving teens and their still-developing brains.
A one-size-fits-all response frequently falls short when dealing with complex issues involving teens and their still-developing brains.
Without question, typing a threat on a school-owned device was a dumb thing to do. And we should take this opportunity to remind our children (and students) not to do those kinds of things. But kids do dumb things all the time. As adults, we need to investigate these incidents thoroughly and respond reasonably. Serious disciplinary responses like long-term suspension or expulsion should be reserved for the most harmful or risky of behaviors. Absent that, schools should do what they do best: educate. Use the teachable moment to help students understand the potential consequences of their inappropriate behaviors.
The Arizona district court has yet to decide, but I and others will be following this case closely to see how it is resolved.
Link to case: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1450446/gov.uscourts.azd.1450446.1.0.pdf
Suggested citation: Patchin, J.W. (2026). Can a School Suspend a Student for Writing an Email that was Never Sent? Cyberbullying Research Center. https://cyberbullying.org/student-punished-for-unsent-email
The post Can a School Suspend a Student for Writing an Email that was Never Sent? appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.