LaVine ex rel. LaVine v. Blaine School District
2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6088, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 7500, 257 F.3d 981 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
School officials may restrict student speech if facts exist that might reasonably lead them to forecast a substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities. This determination is based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officials, granting them deference in matters of student safety.
Facts:
- In the summer of 1998, high school student James LaVine wrote a poem titled “Last Words,” which graphically described a school shooting and the author's suicide.
- On October 2, 1998, LaVine submitted the poem to his English teacher, Vivian Bleecker, to ask for her opinion on it.
- Bleecker became concerned and shared the poem with school counselor Karen Mulholland and Vice Principal Tim Haney.
- School officials were already aware that LaVine had previously expressed suicidal thoughts, was involved in a domestic dispute that led to his temporary removal from his home, had recently broken up with his girlfriend who accused him of stalking, and had a prior disciplinary record.
- Over the weekend, school officials contacted the police and mental health services; a deputy and a psychiatrist who spoke with LaVine concluded there were insufficient grounds for involuntary commitment.
- Despite the mental health professionals' conclusions, Principal Dan Newell, based on all the information available, decided to issue an emergency expulsion for LaVine on Monday morning.
- After being evaluated by a psychiatrist at the school's expense, LaVine was deemed not to be a threat and was allowed to return to school after missing 17 days.
Procedural Posture:
- James LaVine and his father filed suit against the Blaine School District and several school officials in the U.S. District Court, alleging violations of James's constitutional rights.
- Both the plaintiffs (the LaVines) and the defendants (the school) filed motions for partial summary judgment on the First Amendment claim.
- The district court (trial court) granted the LaVines' motion and denied the school's motion, finding the expulsion unconstitutional.
- The district court issued a permanent injunction ordering the school to remove any negative documentation about the incident from James LaVine's school file.
- The defendants (the school district and officials) appealed the district court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 emergency expulsion of a student, based on the student's submission of a violent poem combined with knowledge of the student's personal and disciplinary history, violate the student's First Amendment right to freedom of speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Fisher, J.
No, the emergency expulsion did not violate the student's First Amendment rights. Under the standard established in Tinker v. Des Moines, schools may suppress student speech if they can show facts that might reasonably lead them to forecast a substantial disruption. Here, the school's decision was not based solely on the poem's content but on a confluence of factors, including LaVine's known history of suicidal ideations, family turmoil, a recent breakup with stalking allegations, and prior disciplinary issues. In the context of recent national school shootings, these combined facts provided a reasonable basis for school officials to fear that LaVine posed a threat to himself or others, justifying a temporary, preventative emergency expulsion aimed at ensuring campus safety rather than punishing expression.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the Tinker "substantial disruption" test in the post-Columbine era, granting significant deference to school officials' assessments of potential threats to student safety. It establishes that student expression, such as creative writing, can be a critical factor in a school's decision to take preventative action when combined with other known risk factors concerning a student's personal history and mental state. The ruling signals that courts will weigh a school's duty to provide a safe environment heavily, potentially lowering the threshold for what constitutes a "reasonable forecast" of disruption when violence is perceived as a possible outcome. However, the court's separate holding that the school could not maintain a permanent negative record after the threat subsided indicates that such emergency powers are temporary and cannot unduly harm a student's future prospects.
Unlock the full brief for LaVine ex rel. LaVine v. Blaine School District