March Madness can bring out the best and the worst in all of us. Threatening to turn off the TV after that one bad call or promising to never watch a game again, trust us, we’ve been there. In schools, however, threats—especially threats of violence—are not taken lightly.
A recent South Dakota Supreme Court decision provides important insight for schools responding to threats of violence. In In the Interest of J.A.D., 2026 S.D. 11, the Court reviewed a case involving a student who told a school staff member he could access guns and threatened to “shoot you and everybody in the school.” The student exited the school after this threat, prompting the school to immediately implement a soft lockdown and contact law enforcement.
The Court ultimately affirmed the student’s adjudication for making a terrorist threat under SDCL 22-8-13, emphasizing that threatening to commit a crime of violence with intent to disrupt a public service can satisfy the statute. A school qualifies as a public service, and the lockdown implemented in response to the threat supported the court’s finding.
In the case, the student argued that the statements were not intended as a real threat and were instead made to get out of school or to escape the situation. However, school staff testified that the student had previously tried to leave school using other tactics and that his demeanor during this incident was noticeably different—quiet, flat, and more serious than in past situations. The Court concluded the evidence supported the guilty adjudication.
What this means for school administrators:
Students claiming “I was just joking” can still be subject to disciplinary consequences for disrupting school. Schools in South Dakota may discipline students for conduct that is “violent or aggressive” and that “disrupts school or that affects a health or safety factor” of the school. In our view, this case supports the position that threats–even when claimed to be jokes–can be inherently disruptive to the school environment. Although the facts of this case arose on campus, the same authority can extend to off-campus conduct, which is where many threats now occur.
Documentation and staff observations can be important. Testimony about a student’s demeanor, past behavior, and the school’s response can play a role in how courts evaluate these cases.
The case reinforces the role of schools in responding to safety concerns. Prompt action and communication with law enforcement are consistent with how courts expect threats to be handled.
Education and prevention play a role. Clear communication through handbooks, safety training, and classroom discussions can help students understand that threats of violence are not harmless statements and may result in legal consequences.
To help schools navigate these problems, KSB offers digital citizenship training for students, staff, and parents. We also offer student discipline template documents that assist administrators when they draft notices that must meet specific legal requirements for more serious offenses.
We hope the only drama you experience this March is in your tournament bracket. But as always, if you have questions about the resources above, or about anything else, please reach out to ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.