Steven Karp, by His Guardian Ad Litem Marvin Karp v. Elliott Becken
477 F.2d 171 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While school officials may curtail student speech if they can reasonably forecast it will cause substantial disruption, they may not punish the student for that pure speech unless the student also violated a specific, pre-existing statute or school rule.
Facts:
- Several students at Canyon del Oro High School, including the appellant, planned a 'walkout' at an athletic awards ceremony to protest the school's refusal to renew an English instructor's contract.
- The day before the planned protest, the appellant notified the news media of the students' plans.
- On the day of the ceremony, student body officers informed school officials that members of the Lettermen Club (school athletes) would likely try to prevent the walkout.
- Fearing a violent confrontation, school officials cancelled the assembly, though some students still walked out of their classes.
- During the lunch hour, the appellant retrieved signs from his car that supported the English instructor and began distributing them to other students gathered with news media on campus.
- A Vice-Principal ordered the students to surrender the signs. The appellant initially refused, asserting a constitutional right, but then complied.
- While the appellant was in the administrative office, a confrontation involving chanting, pushing, and shoving occurred between the demonstrators and some Lettermen.
- A few days later, school officials suspended the appellant for five days, primarily for his actions in bringing and distributing the signs.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant (a student) brought an action against school officials in the U.S. District Court, a federal trial court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The appellant sought a permanent injunction against the enforcement of his five-day suspension.
- After a trial, the District Court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the appellee school officials.
- The appellant then appealed the trial court's decision 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 suspending a student for exercising pure speech, which school officials reasonably feared would cause substantial disruption but which did not violate any specific school rule, violate the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Wallace, Circuit Judge
Yes, the suspension violates the First Amendment. The court established a two-part inquiry. First, under the standard from Tinker v. Des Moines School District, school officials were justified in curtailing the appellant's speech (i.e., confiscating the signs) because the totality of the circumstances—including threats of a counter-protest, media presence, and a tense atmosphere—created a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption. However, the court's second inquiry found that punishment for this speech was not justified. While officials can curtail speech to maintain order, they cannot punish a student for exercising pure speech rights absent a violation of a specific, reasonable school rule or statute. Since there was no rule against bringing signs on campus, and the suspension was primarily for that act, the entire suspension is constitutionally invalid.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the application of the Tinker standard by creating a crucial distinction between a school's authority to curtail speech versus its authority to punish it. It establishes that the threshold for punishing pure student speech is higher than the threshold for simply stopping it to prevent a disturbance. By requiring the violation of a specific, pre-existing rule for punishment, the decision provides students with greater protection against after-the-fact disciplinary actions based on officials' subjective fears. This holding forces schools to rely on clearly articulated regulations rather than broad discretionary power when disciplining students for expressive activities.
