L. M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts
Unreported, June 9, 2024 (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Public schools may prohibit student speech that passively and silently expresses a message demeaning to characteristics of personal identity, such as gender identity, if school officials reasonably interpret the message as demeaning and reasonably forecast that it will 'poison the educational atmosphere' due to its serious negative psychological impact on students, leading to substantial disruption of the learning environment under the 'material disruption' limitation of Tinker v. Des Moines.
Facts:
- John T. Nichols Middle School (NMS) in Middleborough, Massachusetts, served students aged ten to fourteen, and administrators were aware that several students identified as part of the LGBTQ+ community, including transgender or gender nonconforming students, some of whom had experienced bullying, self-harm, or suicidal ideation related to their gender identity.
- NMS's student handbook included a Dress Code that prohibited clothing displaying 'hate speech or imagery that target[s] groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, or any other classification.'
- On March 21, 2023, seventh-grader L.M. wore a black t-shirt to NMS with the words 'There Are Only Two Genders' printed in capitalized letters, intending to express his belief that his views were not hateful.
- L.M.'s teacher contacted Assistant Principal Jason Carroll, expressing concerns about the safety of L.M. and other LGBTQ+ students, citing potential class disruption.
- Acting Principal Heather Tucker met with L.M., explained he could not wear the shirt, and when he declined to remove it, L.M.'s father Christopher Morrison was called to pick him up from school.
- After local and national media attention, on May 5, 2023, L.M. wore the same shirt, but covered the words 'Only Two' with tape on which he had written 'CENSORED,' to protest the school's prior action.
- School administrators again asked L.M. to remove the 'Taped Shirt,' which he did, and he returned to class, without facing discipline for either incident.
- Between March 21 and May 5, NMS experienced increased community complaints, threatening phone calls to staff, and police detail due to the controversy, although the school did not experience direct disruptions within the classroom.
- On April 13, 2023, two individuals stood off school property holding signs that read, 'there are only two genders' and 'keep woke politics out our schools'.
- The next day, counter-protesters stood off school property and held signs that read, 'trans people belong', 'everyone is welcome here', and 'we support trans rights'.
Procedural Posture:
- L.M., by and through his natural guardians, sued the Town of Middleborough, the Middleborough School Committee, Superintendent Carolyn Lyons, and then-interim now-acting Principal Heather Tucker in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations.
- L.M. moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
- The District Court denied L.M.'s motion for a temporary restraining order on June 1, 2023.
- The District Court denied L.M.'s motion for a preliminary injunction on June 16, 2023, concluding L.M. failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits for his as-applied claims (regarding both shirts) and his facial challenges to the Dress Code, based on Tinker's rights-of-others limitation.
- L.M. filed a notice of interlocutory appeal of the District Court's ruling on June 23, 2023.
- On July 17, the parties filed a joint motion for final judgment, agreeing to convert the preliminary injunction ruling into a final judgment.
- The District Court entered final judgment for Middleborough as to all L.M.'s claims, incorporating the reasoning from its preliminary-injunction ruling.
- L.M. timely appealed the final judgment to the First Circuit.
- On August 15, 2023, the First Circuit granted the parties' joint motion to consolidate the appeals.
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 middle school violate a student's First Amendment rights by prohibiting the student from wearing a t-shirt stating 'There Are Only Two Genders' and a modified version stating 'CENSORED' when school administrators reasonably conclude the message demeans the gender identity of other students and reasonably forecast that it would cause substantial disruption to the learning environment?
Opinions:
Majority - Barron, Chief Judge
No, the public middle school did not violate L.M.'s First Amendment rights by prohibiting him from wearing the t-shirts, because school administrators reasonably interpreted the messages as demeaning to transgender and gender nonconforming students' identities and reasonably forecasted that the messages would 'poison the educational atmosphere' and materially disrupt the learning environment. The court affirmed the district court's rulings, albeit primarily relying on Tinker's 'material disruption' limitation rather than solely the 'invasion of the rights of others' limitation. The court outlined a two-part framework derived from extensive federal caselaw: (1) whether the expression is reasonably interpreted to demean a characteristic of personal identity that is 'unalterable or otherwise deeply rooted,' and (2) whether the demeaning message is reasonably forecasted to 'poison the educational atmosphere' due to its serious negative psychological impact on students with the demeaned characteristic, thereby leading to 'symptoms of a sick school' and 'substantial disruption.' Applying this framework, the court found Middleborough reasonably concluded that 'There Are Only Two Genders' demeaned the identity of transgender and gender nonconforming students in a middle school setting, and reasonably forecasted a serious negative impact on those students' ability to learn, given the administrators' specific knowledge of the vulnerability of LGBTQ+ students at NMS, including their past struggles and suicidal ideation. The court emphasized that the forecast of disruption need not be certain and can include psychological effects that impede learning. The court also rejected L.M.'s facial challenge to the 'hate speech' provision of the Dress Code, finding it not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, especially given the flexibility afforded to public schools in drafting disciplinary codes. However, the court found L.M. lacked standing to challenge the 'community standards' provision as it was not applied to him and not severable from the 'hate speech' provision.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of Tinker v. Des Moines in the First Circuit, particularly concerning student speech related to gender identity and other personal characteristics. It establishes a clear two-part test for when schools can restrict such speech under the 'material disruption' prong, moving beyond a sole reliance on the 'rights of others' limitation. The ruling grants substantial deference to school administrators' reasonable forecasts of disruption based on the psychological impact of demeaning identity speech, potentially allowing schools more leeway to regulate speech perceived as harmful to vulnerable student populations even in the absence of overt physical disruption. This decision provides a framework for future cases involving identity-based speech in public schools, distinguishing between mere 'unpopular viewpoints' and speech that genuinely threatens the educational environment for specific groups of students.
