Lexplug logoLexplug

McIntire v. Bethel School, Independent School District No. 3

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
804 F. Supp. 1415 (1992)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the First Amendment, school officials may not prohibit non-school-sponsored student expression unless they can provide a factual basis for a reasonable forecast that the expression will substantially disrupt or materially interfere with school activities or invade the rights of others.


Facts:

  • In November 1991, student Jana Corso designed a t-shirt with the slogan, 'The best of the night’s adventures are reserved for people with nothing planned.'
  • Corso and other students wore the shirts to Bethel High School on multiple occasions between November 1991 and February 1992 without causing any disruption or incident.
  • The slogan had been used in a Bacardi Black rum advertising campaign that ended in June 1991, but the t-shirt did not contain the Bacardi name, logo, or any other reference to alcohol.
  • On March 3, 1992, Superintendent James Harrod learned of the slogan's origin and, believing the shirts promoted alcohol in violation of the school dress code, directed the high school principal to prohibit the shirts.
  • Pursuant to Harrod's direction, approximately 26 students who wore the shirts to school that day were suspended.
  • Harrod also threatened that members of the basketball teams would be 'kicked off' their teams if they wore the shirts.

Procedural Posture:

  • Students and their parents (Plaintiffs) filed suit against the Bethel School Board, Superintendent James Harrod, and other school officials (Defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
  • Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint seeking a temporary injunction, permanent injunction, and damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of their First Amendment rights.
  • Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
  • The District Court consolidated the hearing on the Plaintiffs' application for a temporary injunction with the arguments on the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Locked

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 school superintendent's prohibition of students wearing t-shirts with a slogan that originated in a liquor advertisement, but does not explicitly mention alcohol, violate the students' First Amendment free speech rights when there is no evidence the shirts caused or were likely to cause a substantial disruption?


Opinions:

Majority - Russell, J.

Yes, the superintendent's prohibition of the t-shirts violates the students' First Amendment rights. The court determined that the applicable legal standard is from Tinker v. Des Moines, which permits regulation of student speech only if school officials can reasonably forecast a substantial disruption. Here, the t-shirts are not school-sponsored, so the more lenient Hazelwood/Fraser standard, which allows regulation for legitimate pedagogical concerns, does not apply. The court found that the defendants failed to prove that the t-shirt message actually advertises an alcoholic beverage or that a reasonable student would perceive it as such. More importantly, the defendants provided no evidence of any facts that could have led them to reasonably forecast that the shirts would cause a substantial disruption or material interference with school activities; in fact, the shirts had been worn previously without any incident.



Analysis:

This case reinforces the robust protection for student personal expression established in Tinker v. Des Moines. It clarifies that the more deferential Hazelwood standard for school-sponsored speech does not apply to students' private apparel, even when worn on campus. The decision signals to school administrators that they cannot rely on speculative fears or unreasonable interpretations of a message to justify censorship; they must have a concrete, factual basis to believe that student speech will genuinely disrupt the educational environment. This creates a higher evidentiary burden for schools seeking to enforce vague dress code provisions against student expression that is not lewd, obscene, or explicitly promoting illegal activity.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: McIntire v. Bethel School, Independent School District No. 3 (1992)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"