(a)No private postsecondary educational institution shall make or enforce a rule subjecting a student to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct that is speech or other communication that, when engaged in outside the campus or facility of a private postsecondary institution, is protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section 2 of Article I of the California Constitution.
(b)A student enrolled in a private postsecondary institution at the time that the institution has made or enforced any rule in violation of subdivision (a) may commence a civil action to obtain appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief as determined by the court. Upon motion, a court may award attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil action pursuant to this section.
(c)This section does not apply to a private postsecondary educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization, to the extent that the application of this section would not be consistent with the religious tenets of the organization.
(d)This section does not authorize the prior restraint of student speech.
(e)This section does not prohibit the imposition of discipline for harassment, threats, or intimidation, unless constitutionally protected.
(f)This section does not prohibit an institution from adopting rules and regulations that are designed to prevent hate violence, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 4 of Chapter 1363 of the Statutes of 1992, from being directed at students in a manner that denies them their full participation in the educational process, so long as the rules and regulations conform to standards established by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 2 of Article I of the California Constitution for citizens generally.
Notes of Decisions
Karimi v. Golden Gate Sch. of Law, 361 F. Supp. 3d 956 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
· cites it 2× “California Education Code Section 94367 Karimi's first claim invokes California's Leonard Law, which provides as follows: No private postsecondary educational institution shall make or enforce a rule subjecting a student to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct…”
Antebi v. Occidental Coll., 141 Cal. App. 4th 1542 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 6× “In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude that the “Leonard Law” (Ed. Code, § 94367 et seq.) does not apply to appellant since he was no longer enrolled as a student when he brought suit.”
Yu v. Univ. of La Verne, 196 Cal. App. 4th 779 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
“Section 94367 Protects Liberty of Speech but Does Not Protect the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances “The Leonard Law, Education Code section 94367 et seq., prohibits private universities from disciplining students for speech that would be *789 protected…”
Oscar Salinas v. Palo Alto Univ., No. 17-17154 (9th Cir. May 23, 2018).
· cites it 2× “The district court properly granted summary judgment on Salinas’s California Education Code Section 94367 claim because Salinas failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Palo Alto University subjected Salinas to disciplinary sanctions or whether Salinas…”
Morteza Karimi v. Golden Gate Sch. of Law, No. 19-15469 (9th Cir. Mar. 9, 2020).
· cites it 2× “The district court properly granted summary judgment on Karimi’s claim under California Education Code section 94367 because the claim was moot.”
Omicron Chapter of Kappa etc. v. Univ. of S. Cal., No. B309916 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2022).
“The sorority and fraternity plaintiffs in this case1 allege defendant University of Southern California (USC) violated Education Code section 94367 (section 94367), enacted as part of what is commonly known as the Leonard Law, by instituting a “deferred recruitment” policy that…”
Doe v. Leland Stanford Junior Univ., No. H050567 (Cal. Ct. App. June 26, 2024).
“4th 1542, 1546-1547 [“The Leonard Law, Education Code section 94367 et seq., prohibits private universities from disciplining students for speech that would be protected by the First Amendment [and article I, section 2 of the California Constitution] if made off campus”].”
Grisham v. Notre Dame De Namur Univ., No. A135765M (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 6, 2013).
“, prohibits private universities from disciplining students for speech that would be protected by the First Amendment [and article I, section 2 of the California Constitution] if made off campus.‘ [Citation.]‖ (Yu v. University of La Verne (2011) 196 Cal.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.