Lexplug logoLexplug

Alan Burch v. Brian H. Barker

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 15585, 1988 WL 122266, 861 F.2d 1149 (1988)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A school district policy that requires students to submit all non-school-sponsored written materials for predistribution review and content-based censorship is an unconstitutional prior restraint that violates the First Amendment.


Facts:

  • In 1977, the Renton School District adopted a policy requiring students to submit all student-written materials not in official school publications for predistribution review and approval.
  • In 1983, five students at Lindbergh High School, at their own expense and off school property, wrote a four-page newspaper called Bad Astra.
  • The newspaper included articles critical of school administration policies, a mock teacher poll, and poetry, but contained no profanity, obscenity, or defamatory material.
  • On May 20, 1983, the students distributed approximately 350 copies of Bad Astra at a school-sponsored senior class barbecue on school grounds without submitting it for review.
  • A parent, who was president of the PTA, also placed copies of the newspaper in faculty and staff mailboxes.
  • The school principal reprimanded the five students solely for violating the predistribution review policy and placed letters of reprimand in their permanent files.
  • School officials admitted that if the newspaper had been submitted for review, they would have allowed its distribution without any changes.
  • The distribution of Bad Astra caused no violence, physical damage, or interference with classes; the only noted effect was that a few teachers who were mocked became emotionally upset.

Procedural Posture:

  • The five students and their parents filed an action in the United States District Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the high school principal and other school officials.
  • The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief to find the predistribution review policy unconstitutional and to have the students' reprimands expunged from their records.
  • The district court held that the policy of prior review did not violate the students’ First Amendment rights.
  • The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a school district's policy requiring students to submit all non-school-sponsored, student-written materials for prior review and approval before distribution on school grounds violate the students' First Amendment right to freedom of speech?


Opinions:

Majority - Schroeder, Circuit Judge

Yes, the policy violates the students' First Amendment rights. The court distinguished between student speech that is school-sponsored and speech that is not. Citing Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, the court explained that educators may exercise editorial control over school-sponsored expressive activities for legitimate pedagogical reasons. However, Bad Astra was not a school-sponsored publication; therefore, the standard from Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Community Sch. Dist. applies. Under Tinker, student expression may only be suppressed if school officials can show that the speech would 'materially and substantially interfere' with the school's operation. The Renton School District's policy constituted a prior restraint based on an 'undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance,' which is insufficient to justify suppressing student speech under Tinker. The policy was overly broad as it subjected all non-school-sponsored student communications to potential censorship without being narrowly tailored to prevent substantial disruption.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the crucial distinction between the standards governing school-sponsored speech versus independent student expression. By applying the Tinker 'substantial disruption' test to non-school-sponsored materials, the court limited the reach of the more lenient Kuhlmeier 'legitimate pedagogical concerns' standard. This holding protects 'underground' student newspapers and other forms of independent student speech from broad, content-based prior restraint policies. It establishes that schools cannot mandate pre-approval for all student publications based on a general fear of potential disruption, thereby safeguarding a significant avenue for student expression on campus.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Alan Burch v. Brian H. Barker (1988) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Alan Burch v. Brian H. Barker