Barr v. Lafon
538 F.3d 554, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17690, 2008 WL 3851437 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public school may prohibit student speech, such as the display of the Confederate flag on clothing, if school officials can reasonably forecast that the speech will cause a substantial and material disruption to the school environment, based on a history of racially motivated incidents and tensions.
Facts:
- During the 2004-2005 school year, William Blount High School experienced a series of racially charged events, including physical altercations between white and African-American students.
- In the spring of 2005, racist graffiti appeared in school restrooms, including threats like 'all niggers must die,' 'hit lists' with specific students' names, and a drawing of a noose next to a Confederate flag.
- Following these threats, parents expressed fear for their children's safety, and the school observed a dramatic increase in absenteeism among African-American students.
- In response to the escalating racial tensions and threats of violence, school director Alvin Hord, in consultation with law enforcement, implemented a police lockdown of the school in April 2005.
- At the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year, Principal Steven Lafon announced that clothing displaying the Confederate flag was banned because it was disruptive to the school environment.
- In September 2005, student Derek Barr wore a T-shirt featuring a small Confederate flag and was instructed to turn it inside out or face suspension.
- In January 2006, student Chris Nicole White wore a shirt with an image of the Confederate flag and was told to cover it with a jacket or be suspended.
Procedural Posture:
- Derek Barr, Roger Craig White, and Chris Nicole White (plaintiffs) sued their high school principal, the school director, and the Blount County School Board (defendants) in the U.S. District Court.
- The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which the district court denied.
- A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction.
- The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on their Equal Protection claim, and the defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on all claims (First Amendment, Equal Protection, and Due Process).
- The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case with prejudice.
- The plaintiffs (now Plaintiffs-Appellants) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
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 public high school's dress code, which bans students from wearing clothing depicting the Confederate flag, violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech when the school has a documented history of racial tension and racially motivated incidents?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Karen Nelson Moore
No, a public high school's ban on clothing depicting the Confederate flag does not violate the First Amendment when school officials can reasonably forecast, based on a history of racial tension and incidents, that such displays will cause a substantial and material disruption to the educational environment. The controlling precedent is Tinker v. Des Moines, which allows schools to regulate student speech that they reasonably forecast will 'materially and substantially interfere' with school discipline and the educational process. Unlike in Tinker, where there was no evidence of potential disruption, the record here is filled with evidence of racial violence, threats, and tension, including physical fights, racist graffiti depicting the Confederate flag with a noose, and a police lockdown. This evidence provides a sufficient basis for school officials to reasonably forecast that displays of the Confederate flag would disrupt the school environment and impinge upon the rights of other students 'to be secure and to be let alone.' A school is not required to wait for an actual disruption to occur before acting. Furthermore, the ban was not impermissible viewpoint discrimination because the school's policy bans all symbols that cause disruption, and the plaintiffs failed to show that it was enforced unevenly against the Confederate flag while permitting other racially divisive symbols, such as Malcolm X iconography.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of the Tinker 'reasonable forecast of substantial disruption' standard within the Sixth Circuit, particularly concerning racially charged symbols. It clarifies that a school does not need evidence of a prior disruption caused by the specific symbol itself but can rely on a broader history of related tension to justify a preemptive ban. The decision empowers school administrators to restrict student speech that is likely to exacerbate a volatile environment, giving significant weight to the school's duty to maintain safety and order. By addressing and rejecting the viewpoint discrimination claim, the court also provides a framework for how schools can implement facially neutral policies that may, in practice, initially target a specific, highly disruptive symbol without being found unconstitutional, so long as the policy would be applied even-handedly to other disruptive symbols.
