CUFF EX REL. BC v. Valley Cent. School Dist.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6024, 2012 WL 954063, 677 F.3d 109 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public school may constitutionally regulate student speech when it can reasonably forecast that the speech will cause a substantial disruption or material interference with school activities. The student's subjective intent is irrelevant; the analysis focuses on the objective reasonableness of the school administrators' forecast of disruption.
Facts:
- In January 2006, B.C., a student at Berea Elementary School, drew a picture of a person firing a gun accompanied by text describing shooting four people, which he explained was a depiction of a paintball game.
- In the spring of 2007, for a fourth-grade assignment, B.C. wrote a story about a natural disaster that destroyed all schools and resulted in the deaths of all adults and children.
- B.C. had a prior history of disciplinary issues at the school, including altercations during recess, pushing in hallways, and rough play.
- On September 12, 2007, B.C., then a ten-year-old fifth-grader, was in his science class for an assignment to fill in a drawing of an astronaut.
- The teacher, Tara DeBold, instructed students they could write a 'wish' in one section and, when asked for examples, told the class they could write about 'anything,' even mentioning 'missiles.'
- B.C. wrote his 'wish' was to 'Blow up the school with the teachers in it.'
- He showed the drawing to nearby classmates, who laughed in response.
- Another student, C.P., saw the drawing and reported it to DeBold; DeBold perceived C.P. to be 'very worried.'
Procedural Posture:
- William and Margaret Cuff sued the Valley Central School District and Principal Knecht in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of their son, B.C.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The Cuffs, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Second Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
- Following discovery on remand, the defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the school district.
- The Cuffs, as appellants, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with the school district as appellees.
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 district violate a student's First Amendment rights by suspending him for creating a drawing that expresses a wish to 'Blow up the school with the teachers in it,' based on a reasonable forecast that the speech could cause a substantial disruption?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Winter
No, the school district did not violate the student's First Amendment rights. Under the standard established in Tinker, student speech may be curtailed if school authorities can reasonably forecast that it will 'materially and substantially interfere' with school discipline and operation. The test is objective and does not depend on the student's intent. Here, the school's forecast of disruption was reasonable given B.C.'s history of disciplinary issues and prior violent writings, the fact that other students saw the drawing, and the worried reaction of at least one classmate who reported it. In the context of threats of violence, courts must grant wide leeway to school administrators to act decisively to protect students and maintain parental confidence in school safety.
Dissenting - Judge Pooler
Yes, the school district did violate the student's First Amendment rights. A reasonable jury could conclude that the school's forecast of a 'substantial disruption' was unreasonable. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to B.C., his drawing was a crude, ill-advised joke made by a ten-year-old, partly prompted by his teacher's own mention of 'missiles.' The classmates who saw it laughed and were not alarmed, and there is a factual dispute as to whether the student who reported it was genuinely scared or acting out of spite. The momentary classroom interruption did not rise to the level of a substantial disruption required by Tinker, and the majority defers too much to the school's fear, conflating a permissible precautionary investigation with an unconstitutional punishment for speech.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant deference courts grant to school administrators in regulating student speech that involves threats of violence. It affirms that under the Tinker standard, the subjective intent of the student (e.g., claiming it was a joke) is not the focus; rather, the objective reasonableness of the school's forecast of disruption is paramount. The ruling suggests that even a minimal potential for disturbance, when combined with a student's prior disciplinary history, is sufficient to justify discipline, thereby lowering the threshold for what constitutes a 'reasonable forecast' in cases involving perceived threats.
Unlock the full brief for CUFF EX REL. BC v. Valley Cent. School Dist.