Comment by Olivia S. Neilson
This Comment builds on prior analyses of Mahanoy and Morse to explore the rights of high school students to both engage in abortion-related speech and receive information about abortion services. After Dobbs, however, this Comment addresses these rights specifically in the context of state-based abortion regulation to show how Morse now threatens students' right to speak about abortion in certain states and to chart a course for the lower courts on this matter. Part II begins with a history of the case law on student speech, starting with Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and its progeny. Part III highlights the framework in Mahanoy as a preferred model for adjudicating student speech cases and preventing Dobbs's censorship of abortion-related speech. Part IV, through analyzing Morse's ruling and how courts have applied it thus far, dissects the language in school district policies to demonstrate how Morse can be interpreted either narrowly or broadly to restrict student speech on abortion. It further argues that the Court's reasoning in Morse provides an all-too-tempting loophole for states to coercively limit student speech on “illegal” matters--namely, abortion--and the consequences that may follow. Part V briefly concludes.
About the Author
Olivia S. Neilson, J.D. Candidate 2024, Tulane University Law School; B.A. 2019, Queen's University at Kingston. I would like to thank my advisor, Professor Catherine Hancock, for her guidance on this challenging topic and the members and staff of the Tulane Law Review for their role in preparing this Comment for publication. I would also like to thank my close friends and colleagues, my grandmother, Jan, and especially my parents, Cyndi and Rick, for their constant support and encouragement.
Citation
98 Tul. L. Rev. 191