Corder v. Lewis Palmer School District No. 38
566 F.3d 1219 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public school may exercise editorial control over the content of a student's valedictory speech given at a school-sponsored graduation ceremony, and compel a subsequent apology for violating its policies, so long as the school's actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.
Facts:
- Erica Corder was one of fifteen valedictorians for her 2006 high school graduating class in the Lewis Palmer School District No. 38.
- The school principal had an unwritten policy requiring all valedictorians to submit their speeches for content review prior to the graduation ceremony.
- Corder submitted a secular speech to the principal for review as required.
- At the graduation ceremony, Corder delivered a different speech that she had not submitted for review, which included overtly religious, proselytizing content about Jesus Christ.
- Following the ceremony, school officials informed Corder that they would withhold her diploma.
- The principal later required Corder to issue a written statement, which he edited to include an admission that her speech would not have been permitted had she sought prior approval, as a condition for receiving her diploma.
- Corder agreed to include the principal's required sentence in her statement, which was then distributed via email, and she subsequently received her diploma.
Procedural Posture:
- Erica Corder filed a lawsuit against the Lewis Palmer School District No. 38 in the U.S. District Court, alleging violations of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and a Colorado state statute.
- The School District filed a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings.
- The district court granted the School District’s motion, dismissing all of Corder's claims.
- Corder (Plaintiff-Appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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 unwritten policy requiring prior review of valedictory speeches and its subsequent action of compelling a student to apologize for delivering an unapproved religious speech violate the student's First Amendment rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, and compelled speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Briscoe, Circuit Judge
No. A public school's policy of prior review for valedictory speeches and its action of compelling an apology for a student's deviation from that policy does not violate the First Amendment. The court determined that the appropriate legal standard is from Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, not Tinker v. Des Moines, because a valedictory speech at a school-organized graduation ceremony is school-sponsored speech that the public might reasonably perceive to bear the school's imprimatur. Under Hazelwood, educators may exercise editorial control over student speech so long as their actions are 'reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.' The court found the prior review policy was reasonably related to pedagogical concerns such as teaching discipline, courtesy, respect for authority, and maintaining the school's neutrality on controversial matters like religion. Similarly, compelling an apology for violating this policy was a reasonable disciplinary action related to the same pedagogical concerns. The court also rejected Corder's Free Exercise claim because the school's policy was a neutral rule of general applicability, and she was disciplined for violating the rule, not for the religious content of her speech. Her Equal Protection claim failed because she was not similarly situated to the other valedictorians, as she was the only one who violated the prior-review policy.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the Hazelwood standard to student speeches at graduation ceremonies, categorizing them as school-sponsored speech rather than private student expression. It grants schools broad authority to regulate the content of such speeches to serve pedagogical goals, including avoiding religious controversy and teaching discipline. The ruling further extends the Hazelwood framework to cover compelled speech, treating a forced apology as a reasonable disciplinary measure connected to the initial regulation of the school-sponsored speech. This strengthens the position of school administrators in controlling the message delivered at official school functions, limiting student First Amendment rights in that specific context.
Unlock the full brief for Corder v. Lewis Palmer School District No. 38