Opinion ID: 177072
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Daniel's Claims Against the Individual Defendants

Text: In light of the record in this case, we hold that the Individual Defendants have qualified immunity with respect to Appellants' First Amendment claims. Qualified immunity is available to the Individual Defendants with respect to the limitations on Daniel's speech and his removal from school if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively reasonable to believe that [their] acts did not violate these clearly established rights. Young v. County of Fulton, 160 F.3d 899, 903 (2d Cir.1998). Assuming arguendo that Daniel had a clearly established right under the First Amendment to return to school following April 26, or to be permitted to address his classmates on school property regarding the events of that day, although we doubt that such a right existed under the circumstances presented here, it was objectively reasonable for [the Individual Defendants] to believe that they [were] acting within constitutional and statutory bounds, Wilkinson v. Russell, 182 F.3d 89, 97 (2d Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted), in prohibiting Daniel's return to East Hampton High School in light of repeated and serious threats to Daniel's physical safety.