EdLawConnect Blog

The lawsuit centers on a student at Hingham High School (“HHS”) in Hingham, Massachusetts, who was disciplined for inappropriately using an AI tool.  Specifically, in December 2023, he and another student used an AI tool to generate content which they directly copied and presented as their own work as part of a multi-part AP US History project.  The material that they copied included source citations that did not exist and were “hallucinated” by the AI tool.  The student at issue received a failing grade on two parts of the project, was given Saturday detention, and was temporarily excluded from the school’s National Honor Society. 

Shortly afterward, his parents filed suit against HHS teachers and school officials and the Hingham school committee in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that HHS exacted excessive disciplinary measures which violated their son’s constitutional rights.  One of the parents’ primary allegations was that HHS lacked a proper AI policy at the time of the incident, that it did not provide adequate guidance regarding student usage of AI, and that it did not explicitly prohibit AI or set forth the disciplinary consequences for inappropriate use.  The complaint further alleged that the school adopted language regarding AI into its handbook only after the incident and, even then, did not constitute a formal policy that was adopted with appropriate stakeholder input.  The parents filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the federal court to expunge the Saturday detention from the student’s disciplinary record and to raise his AP U.S. History grade. 

In opposition to the motion, the defendants argued, among other things, that they provided sufficient information regarding academic integrity fundamentals, including proper usage and citation to AI sources, and that they reasonably concluded that this was a “straightforward case of academic dishonesty” and not an issue of what constitutes acceptable use of a new technology.

On November 20, 2024, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul G. Levenson denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.  The court held that although there is a strong public interest in the protection of constitutional rights, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of succeeding on their claims that HHS violated their son’s constitutional rights.  On the other hand, the court stated that “there is a strong public interest in allowing school officials to do their work undisturbed by unnecessary lawsuits” and that school officials deserve “a great degree of deference” with regard to disciplinary actions.  The court also wrote that granting the injunction could potentially weaken educators' disciplinary tools and hamper their ability to teach proper academic skills.

Notably, although the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs have made clear that the lawsuit will continue and that they intend to conduct discovery.  We will monitor developments for additional insights relevant to school district policy development.

This litigation highlights several vulnerabilities that school districts face if they lack proper AI policies in place.  Even though this particular lawsuit was unsuccessful at the preliminary injunction stage, it consumed and will continue to consume significant administrative time and resources.  Well-crafted policies can help districts avoid similar litigation or position them more favorably if challenged in court.  Further, students, parents, and educators all benefit from explicit guidelines regarding AI use, including clear definitions of permitted and prohibited uses, specific examples, and transparent consequences for policy violations.

To address these challenges, districts should focus on developing comprehensive AI policies that define permitted and prohibited AI uses across different academic contexts, establish clear disciplinary procedures for violations, include guidelines for detection and documentation of AI use, and address accommodations and exceptions where appropriate.  The policy adoption process should include all relevant stakeholders, allow for public comment and feedback, obtain formal board approval, and thoroughly document the adoption process.  Districts should also implement robust training programs to educate staff on policy implementation and enforcement, train students on acceptable AI use, and provide resources for parents to understand district guidelines.

The Hingham case serves as a valuable reminder that the rapid advancement of AI technology requires a proactive stance towards policy development by school districts.  While courts may ultimately defer to school administrators' judgment in disciplinary matters, having comprehensive, properly adopted policies in place can help districts avoid costly litigation and maintain academic integrity in an increasingly AI-driven educational landscape.  School districts would be well-advised to take action now to develop or review existing AI policies to ensure that they are comprehensive and legally sound.

Click here for more information about the AI Toolkit.

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