Griggs Ex Rel. Griggs v. Fort Wayne School Bd.
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4295, 2005 WL 555275, 359 F. Supp. 2d 731 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public school's application of a facially valid dress code policy prohibiting symbols of violence to ban a student's T-shirt violates the First Amendment when the shirt's message is clearly contextualized as political or patriotic speech and is not reasonably related to the school's legitimate pedagogical concerns, such as preventing violence.
Facts:
- David Arnold Nelson Griggs, a student at Elmhurst High School, wore a T-shirt to school to express his support for the United States Marines.
- The shirt displayed the 'Creed of a United States Marine,' a large picture of an M16 rifle, and the Marine Corps seal.
- The creed on the shirt included the lines: 'I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me.'
- On March 17, 2003, a school administrator told Griggs to remove the shirt or turn it inside out, which Griggs refused to do.
- The next day, Griggs wore the shirt again to 'make a point.'
- Principal Laura Taliaferro and Assistant Principal John Mohr deemed the shirt 'inappropriate' due to the image of the gun and the text about shooting an enemy.
- After Griggs again refused to remove the shirt, administrators sent him home for the day.
- The administrators acknowledged that the shirt caused no disruption at school and that they did not consider its potential for disruption when they decided to ban it.
Procedural Posture:
- David Arnold Nelson Griggs filed a lawsuit against the Fort Wayne School Board and various school officials in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.
- Griggs sought an injunction to permit him to wear the shirt and to prohibit the school from enforcing the 'symbols of violence' provision of its dress code.
- Both Griggs (Plaintiff) and the Board (Defendants) filed cross-motions for summary judgment before the court.
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 application of its dress code, which prohibits 'apparel depicting...symbols of violence,' to ban a student from wearing a T-shirt featuring the U.S. Marine Corps creed and an image of a rifle violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Cosbey, United States Magistrate Judge
Yes, the school's ban on Griggs's specific shirt violates the First Amendment. Although a school's general prohibition on 'symbols of violence' is a constitutional regulation reasonably related to the legitimate pedagogical concern of preventing school violence, its application to this particular shirt is not. The court reasoned that the shirt's message, when viewed in its proper context with the title 'The Creed of a United States Marine' and the official seal, is unambiguously a political statement of support for the military. It is not a generalized endorsement of violence, a threat, or something that could reasonably be related to school shootings. The Board's attempt to justify the ban by invoking tragedies like Columbine or a local murder was unpersuasive, as Griggs's shirt was entirely unrelated to those concerns. Therefore, censoring this specific instance of patriotic speech was not 'reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns' as required under the controlling precedent of Muller/Hazelwood.
Analysis:
This case demonstrates that a facially constitutional school policy can be unconstitutionally applied. It underscores the critical importance of context in analyzing student speech, distinguishing between general threats or glorification of violence and protected political or patriotic expression. The decision also highlights a significant circuit split on the standard for regulating student speech, applying the Seventh Circuit's deferential 'legitimate pedagogical concerns' test from Hazelwood/Muller but noting the outcome would be the same under the more speech-protective 'substantial disruption' test from Tinker used in most other circuits. This holding provides guidance for schools, cautioning them against suppressing speech that is only superficially related to their legitimate safety concerns.
