Holloman Ex Rel. Holloman v. Harland
370 F.3d 1252 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public school student's First Amendment rights are violated when officials punish them for engaging in non-disruptive, symbolic political expression during the Pledge of Allegiance. Additionally, a teacher's daily practice of soliciting prayer requests and leading a moment of silence explicitly framed as prayer violates the Establishment Clause.
Facts:
- Fawn Allred, a teacher at Parrish High School, began her Economics and Government class each day with the Pledge of Allegiance.
- On May 16, 2000, student John Michael Hutto silently refused to recite the Pledge. Principal George Harland threatened Hutto's Air Force Academy recommendation and forced him to apologize to the class.
- Harland then announced to another class that anyone who engaged in a similar protest of the pledge would be punished.
- The following day, May 17, 2000, student Michael Holloman stood during the pledge in Allred's class but silently raised his fist in the air to protest the school's treatment of Hutto.
- Allred immediately chastised Holloman in front of the class for being disrespectful.
- Later that day, Harland punished Holloman by requiring him to serve three days' detention, which Holloman opted to receive as a paddling (corporal punishment) in order to graduate on time.
- Separately, Allred regularly began her class by asking for "prayer requests," after which she would conduct a moment of silence, often introduced with the phrase "Let us pray" and concluded with "Amen."
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Holloman filed a § 1983 suit against Fawn Allred, George Harland, and the Walker County Board of Education in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
- The individual defendants, Allred and Harland, moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Allred and Harland, dismissing them from the case.
- The Walker County Board of Education subsequently moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the School Board, concluding Holloman failed to state a valid claim for municipal liability.
- Holloman appealed both summary judgment rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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 punishing a high school student for silently raising his fist during the Pledge of Allegiance violate his clearly established First Amendment rights to be free from compelled speech, to engage in expressive conduct, and to be free from viewpoint discrimination? Additionally, does a public school teacher's daily classroom practice of soliciting prayer requests and leading a moment of silent prayer, framed with religious language, violate the Establishment Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Tjoflat, Circuit Judge
Yes, punishing the student could violate his clearly established First Amendment rights under three distinct theories, and yes, the teacher's prayer ritual violates the Establishment Clause. Holloman's punishment may have violated his clearly established rights because a jury could find it was (1) for refusing to recite the Pledge, violating the compelled speech doctrine of West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette; (2) for his expressive conduct (raising his fist), which was not shown to be materially and substantially disruptive under the Tinker-Burnside standard; or (3) motivated by the school officials' disagreement with his unpatriotic viewpoint, which constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination. Regarding the Establishment Clause, Allred's daily prayer ritual fails the Lemon test because it serves a religious purpose and has the primary effect of endorsing and advancing religion, which is a clearly established violation under cases like Wallace v. Jaffree. The court also held Allred was ineligible for qualified immunity on the Establishment Clause claim because leading prayer is not a 'discretionary function' of a public school teacher.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Wilson, Circuit Judge
Partially Yes and Partially No. The punishment violated Holloman's rights if it was for simply refusing to say the pledge or because officials disagreed with his viewpoint. However, Holloman did not have a protected First Amendment right to raise his fist during class because, unlike passively wearing an armband, this action is inherently disruptive and competes for student attention, falling outside the protections of Tinker and Burnside. Even if such a right existed, it was not clearly established. The judge concurs that Allred's prayer ritual violated the Establishment Clause, but dissents from the majority's reasoning that leading prayer was not a 'discretionary function,' arguing that the proper analysis is that she performed a discretionary function for which she was not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated a clearly established right.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies student First Amendment rights in the Eleventh Circuit by providing three distinct avenues for a student speech claim: compelled speech, expressive conduct, and viewpoint discrimination. It reinforces the Tinker-Burnside standard that student expression is protected unless it causes a material and substantial disruption, not just discomfort or disagreement. The decision also provides a detailed framework for municipal liability, particularly finding that a principal can be a 'final policymaker' when administering irreversible punishments like corporal punishment, thereby making the school board liable. Finally, it strongly reaffirms that teacher-led or teacher-sponsored religious activities in the classroom, even if framed as a 'moment of silence,' are unconstitutional.
Unlock the full brief for Holloman Ex Rel. Holloman v. Harland