Lexplug logoLexplug

Mrs. Margaret Burnside v. James Byars

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
363 F.2d 744 (1966)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A school regulation infringing on students' First Amendment right to symbolic expression is unconstitutional unless the school can show that the expression materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.


Facts:

  • Mr. Montgomery Moore, the principal of Booker T. Washington High School in Mississippi, learned that students were wearing circular buttons that read 'One Man One Vote' with 'SNCC' in the center.
  • The principal announced a school-wide regulation prohibiting the wearing of these 'freedom buttons,' stating they were unrelated to education and would cause commotion.
  • On September 21, 1964, three students who wore the buttons in defiance of the rule were given the choice to remove them or go home; they chose to go home.
  • On September 24, 1964, approximately 30 to 40 students wore the buttons to school.
  • Principal Moore gathered the students and told them to either remove the buttons or be suspended.
  • The great majority of the students chose to go home and were subsequently suspended for one week.
  • The principal testified that the students were suspended for violating the regulation, not for causing a commotion or disrupting classes.
  • Evidence presented showed only mild curiosity from other students and no actual interference with the school's educational activities.

Procedural Posture:

  • Parents of the suspended students (Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against school officials in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
  • Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the school from enforcing its ban on 'freedom buttons'.
  • The U.S. District Court (trial court) denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
  • The plaintiffs (Appellants) appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

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 high school regulation that prohibits students from wearing 'freedom buttons' violate the students' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free expression when the buttons do not cause a material and substantial disruption to the school's operation?


Opinions:

Majority - Gewin, Circuit Judge

Yes, a high school regulation that prohibits students from wearing 'freedom buttons' violates the students' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free expression when the buttons do not cause a material and substantial disruption to the school's operation. The court reasoned that while school officials have wide discretion to create rules for maintaining order, these rules must be reasonable and not infringe upon students' constitutional rights. The right to communicate on matters of public concern, such as civil rights, is protected by the First Amendment, and students do not lose this right at the schoolhouse gate. A regulation is only reasonable if it 'measurably contributes to the maintenance of order and decorum.' In this case, there was no evidence that wearing the buttons hampered school activities or caused any significant disruption; the principal even admitted the suspension was for the rule violation itself, not for any actual disturbance. Therefore, the court found the regulation to be an arbitrary, unreasonable, and unnecessary infringement on the students' protected right of free expression.



Analysis:

This case is a landmark decision in student free speech rights, establishing the 'material and substantial disruption' standard that was later adopted by the Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines. The ruling significantly curtailed the ability of school officials to prohibit student expression based on mere speculation or disagreement with the message. It establishes that symbolic, passive political speech is protected within schools unless it demonstrably interferes with the educational environment or school discipline. This precedent forces schools to provide concrete evidence of disruption rather than relying on abstract fears to justify censorship of student speech.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Mrs. Margaret Burnside v. James Byars (1966) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Mrs. Margaret Burnside v. James Byars