EdLawConnect Blog

In Lawrence, Kansas, nine current and former high school students filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging their school district’s use of Gaggle.  The plaintiffs, primarily student journalists from their school newspaper, alleged that Gaggle continuously monitors all content within the school district’s Google Workspace.  The plaintiffs alleged that although Gaggle alerts the district to anything that it believes may be a safety risk, including key phrases in student emails relating to mental health, it also flagged and deleted student journalism materials, including publication drafts and collaborative documents, as well as student photography and artwork which it incorrectly perceived to contain depictions of indecent exposure or child pornography.  The lawsuit seeks  injunctive relief to halt the district’s use of the surveillance program, monetary damages, and a declaration that the district's AI monitoring policy is an unconstitutional violation of the First and Fourth Amendments.

In Marana, Arizona, the parents of a high school student brought a lawsuit against their school district related to Gaggle flagging a draft email in the student’s email account.  The student typed an email to a teacher on a school-issued laptop which stated, among other things, “GANG GANG GIMME A BETTER GRADE OR I SHOOT UP DA SKOOL HOMIE.”  According to the plaintiffs, the student typed the email as a joke, deleted it, and did not send it.  However, Gaggle alerted the district to the draft email and, within an hour, the school’s principal contacted the student’s mother.  The plaintiffs alleged that the email was intended as a joke, that the mother was with the student the entire time, and that there was no reason to believe that the email was a credible threat.  Nevertheless, the district suspended the student for ten days for writing a “threatening or intimidating” email and required him to attend counseling.  

Both lawsuits highlight critical constitutional concerns that extend beyond these individual cases.  The AI surveillance system in question operates continuously and appears to monitor every document and even student keystrokes on district-issued devices, regardless of their location.  This level of surveillance raises serious Fourth Amendment questions about unreasonable searches and seizures, particularly when conducted without individualized suspicion.  The First Amendment implications are also significant, as both cases demonstrate how AI flagging can constitute a prior restraint on student speech and expression.  The Kansas lawsuit in particular alleges that the AI surveillance tool undermines student journalism, which has been historically afforded a level of special protection in the educational setting.  

AI surveillance technology is certainly helpful for purposes of student safety, and it may detect genuine threats of self-harm and violence. However, these legal challenges underscore the need for school districts to carefully balance legitimate safety concerns with students’ constitutional rights.  Should algorithmic monitoring be subject to the same constitutional constraints as human surveillance?  It will be interesting to see how these cases develop in the courts, as they address the issue of evolving student digital rights in the AI age.

These lawsuits serve as a reminder that school districts cannot simply deploy AI surveillance tools without implementing carefully developed policies, or at least issuing guidance documents, that balance student safety and privacy with constitutional protections.  It will be important for districts to establish comprehensive privacy protocols that address when surveillance is appropriate and what types of communications warrant human review.  

This AALRR publication is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.

© 2025 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo