Castorina ex rel. Rewt v. Madison County School Board
246 F.3d 536 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Tinker standard, a public school may not prohibit student expression based on an undifferentiated fear of disturbance. To justify banning a particular form of student speech, like apparel with the Confederate flag, a school must demonstrate facts that reasonably forecast a substantial disruption of school activities and must not enforce its dress code in a viewpoint-discriminatory manner.
Facts:
- In the fall of 1997, high school students Timothy Castorina and Tiffany Dargavell wore matching Hank Williams, Jr. concert T-shirts to school.
- The back of the shirts displayed two Confederate flags and the phrase 'Southern Thunder.'
- The students stated they wore the shirts to express their southern heritage and commemorate Hank Williams, Sr.'s birthday.
- Principal William Fultz informed them the shirts violated the school dress code, which banned clothing with 'racist implication[s],' and offered them the choice to turn the shirts inside out or go home to change.
- When the students refused, they were suspended for three days.
- After returning from their suspension still wearing the same shirts, they were suspended for a second three-day period.
- The students alleged that other students at the school were permitted to wear clothing with the 'X' symbol associated with Malcolm X without being disciplined.
- The school claimed a racially-based altercation had occurred prior to the suspensions, but the students disputed that race was the cause.
Procedural Posture:
- Timothy Castorina and Tiffany Dargavell brought suit against the Madison County School Board in federal district court, challenging the constitutionality of their suspensions.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the school board, finding the T-shirts were not protected speech.
- The students, as 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 school's prohibition of student apparel displaying the Confederate flag violate the First Amendment's free speech clause when there are disputed facts regarding a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption and the viewpoint-neutral application of the school's dress code?
Opinions:
Majority - Merritt, J.
The case should be remanded for trial. A school's prohibition on student speech may violate the First Amendment if the school cannot show a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption and if it singles out a particular viewpoint for prohibition while permitting other controversial symbols. The Supreme Court's decision in Tinker v. Des Moines establishes that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate, and silent, passive expression is protected unless it materially and substantially disrupts the school environment. In this case, there are disputed facts as to whether there was a likelihood of disruption. Furthermore, the students' allegation that the school permitted Malcolm X symbols while banning the Confederate flag suggests viewpoint discrimination, which is an egregious First Amendment violation. Unlike cases where flag bans were upheld due to a clear history of racial violence (Melton, West), the facts here are unresolved, making summary judgment for the school improper.
Concurring - Kennedy, J.
The case should be remanded for trial, but the majority's reasoning is flawed because its focus on viewpoint discrimination is misplaced. The central and dispositive question under Tinker is whether there is specific evidence to support a belief that the speech will result in disruption to the educational environment. If the principal reasonably believed a prior fight was caused by the Confederate flag, he had a concrete basis to infer the students' shirts would spark more disruption, justifying the ban. The presence of Malcolm X shirts is irrelevant; a school can prohibit a symbol shown to be disruptive without having to prohibit all other potentially controversial symbols. The case should be remanded solely to determine if the principal had a reasonable basis to forecast disruption, not to analyze whether the policy was applied with perfect viewpoint neutrality.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the Tinker 'substantial disruption' standard as the primary test for regulating non-school-sponsored student speech. The majority opinion emphasizes that the Tinker standard has two critical components: a factual basis for forecasting disruption and a requirement of viewpoint neutrality in enforcement. The concurrence, however, argues for a narrower application, focusing almost exclusively on the reasonable forecast of disruption. This decision highlights the legal tension for school administrators, who must balance student expression against school safety, and clarifies that a simple dislike for a message or an 'undifferentiated fear' is not a constitutionally sufficient reason to suppress student speech.
