Eric Gustafson, a longtime English and journalism teacher at a public high school in California, filed a petition for writ of mandate after the District reassigned him from his position as journalism teacher and faculty advisor to the student newspaper. Gustafson had served as the journalism advisor since 2017 and had received an “Outstanding” performance evaluation, the highest rating available, shortly before the events at issue. The dispute arose following the publication of several controversial student-written articles, including a 2023 piece about student drug use and a 2024 article titled “Invasive and Inappropriate,” which reported on student allegations of sexual harassment by teachers. In both instances, school administrators requested prepublication review of the articles, and Gustafson referred those requests to the student editors, who declined.
In early 2025, Gustafson informed administrators that students were preparing another article concerning teachers’ use of artificial intelligence in grading. That article was never published. Shortly thereafter, the school principal informed Gustafson that he would be replaced as the journalism advisor for the following academic year and reassigned to other teaching duties. Gustafson challenged the reassignment, asserting that it was imposed solely because he had acted to protect student journalists’ editorial independence, in violation of California Education Code section 48907.
Gustafson filed a petition for traditional writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, seeking reinstatement as the journalism teacher and advisor and an order compelling the District to comply with section 48907. That statute provides broad free-expression protections for public school student journalists and expressly prohibits reassigning or retaliating against school employees “solely for acting to protect a pupil engaged in conduct authorized under this section.”
The District argued that the reassignment was a discretionary staffing decision based on concerns about the quality of the student newspaper and a desire to place a teacher with greater journalism experience in the role. The District contended that courts reviewing these petitions should not inquire into administrators’ motives where there is substantial evidence supporting a facially lawful personnel decision.
The Court rejected the District’s arguments and granted the writ. The Court explained that section 48907 expressly makes motive a central inquiry, because it prohibits reassignment “solely” for protecting student expression. As a result, the Court was required to examine whether Gustafson’s protection of student editorial control was the actual reason for the reassignment. After reviewing declarations and deposition testimony, the Court concluded that Gustafson met his burden of showing that his reassignment was motivated entirely by his refusal to interfere with student journalism.
The Court found particularly persuasive the principal’s deposition testimony acknowledging that the controversial articles, including the sexual harassment and proposed AI articles, played a role in the reassignment decision. The Court also found the District’s shifting explanations for the reassignment not credible, noting that there was no evidence of declining journalistic standards, no history of involuntary reassignment of journalism advisors at the School, and no contemporaneous identification of deficiencies that would justify replacing Gustafson. The Court further observed that the proposed replacement teacher had less professional journalism experience than Gustafson and did not seek the assignment.
Because the Court concluded that the District reassigned Gustafson solely to impact the editorial content of the student newspaper in a way administrators could not lawfully accomplish directly, it held that the District violated section 48907. The Court issued a writ of mandate ordering the District to reinstate Gustafson as the Journalism 1 and Journalism 2 teacher and as faculty advisor to the student newspaper, and stayed the order for 30 days to allow the District to take administrative steps to comply.
Gustafson v. San Francisco Unified School District, San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CPF-25-519159 (Jan. 26, 2026).
Note: While this case arose under Education Code section 48907 and involved a public school, California private secondary schools (with exceptions for schools controlled by religious organizations) are subject to the Leonard Law, which provides parallel free-expression protections. Like section 48907, the Leonard Law not only protects students from discipline based on constitutionally protected speech, but also expressly prohibits schools from reassigning, disciplining, or otherwise retaliating against employees solely for acting to protect student speech or refusing to infringe upon it.