Sullivan v. Houston Independent School District
475 F.2d 1071 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A student's flagrant disregard of valid school regulations, open defiance of school authorities, and use of profanity are sufficient and independent grounds for disciplinary action, even if the student's expressive conduct does not cause a material and substantial disruption under the Tinker standard.
Facts:
- The Houston Independent School District (HISD) enacted a regulation requiring students to submit any non-school-sponsored publications to the principal for review one day prior to distribution.
- On October 20, 1970, Paul Kitchen, a student at Waltrip Senior High School, began selling copies of an "underground" newspaper, Space City!, near a campus entrance without first submitting it for review.
- The school principal, Gordon Cotton, observed the newspaper's coarse language, told Kitchen he was violating the prior submission rule, and asked him to stop.
- Kitchen refused Cotton's request and continued selling the papers.
- After being informed of his suspension, Kitchen slammed an office door and shouted, "I don’t want to go to this goddamn school anyway" within earshot of school staff.
- During his suspension, Kitchen returned to campus on several occasions despite being told to leave.
- On October 26, 1970, Kitchen returned to the campus entrance and again sold the newspaper.
- When confronted again by Principal Cotton, Kitchen shouted a vulgarity at him.
Procedural Posture:
- Following an earlier, separate case, the Houston Independent School District was under a 1969 permanent injunction governing its regulation of student publications.
- After the events on October 20 and 26, Principal Cotton held a hearing on October 29, 1970, and suspended Paul Kitchen for the remainder of the semester.
- Kitchen appealed the decision, and a de novo hearing was conducted before an assistant superintendent, who affirmed the suspension.
- This affirmation was subsequently reviewed and upheld by two other superintendents.
- On November 23, 1970, Kitchen and his father applied to the U.S. District Court for an order holding the School District in contempt of the 1969 injunction and for supplementary relief.
- The district court found that Kitchen had been unlawfully suspended, ordered he be given credit for missed school work, but declined to hold the school board in contempt.
- The district court then issued a supplementary injunctive decree clarifying the original 1969 injunction.
- Both Paul Kitchen (as appellee) and the School District (as appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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 school's suspension of a student for deliberately violating a prior submission rule for non-school literature and for open defiance and profanity toward school officials violate the student's First Amendment rights, even if the distribution itself did not cause a material and substantial disruption to school activities?
Opinions:
Majority - Thornberry, Circuit Judge
No, the school's suspension of the student does not violate his First Amendment rights. A student's flagrant disregard for established school regulations and open defiance of school authorities constitutes a sufficient and independent ground for discipline, distinct from the content of the student's expression. Unlike the passive protest in Tinker v. Des Moines, Paul Kitchen's conduct involved repeatedly defying the principal's requests, violating a known rule without attempting to challenge it through proper channels, and using profanity. The court recognized that while the initial hearing before the principal may have been procedurally defective due to the principal's personal involvement, this defect was cured by subsequent de novo appellate hearings. Therefore, the school was empowered to discipline Kitchen for his defiant actions, regardless of whether the newspaper itself caused a material and substantial disruption.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant limitation on the protections for student speech outlined in Tinker v. Des Moines. It creates a conduct-based exception, clarifying that the manner in which a student expresses themself can remove their actions from First Amendment protection. The decision signals that students cannot ignore facially valid school regulations and then claim First Amendment immunity when disciplined for their defiance. It effectively imposes a 'clean hands' doctrine, requiring students to challenge regulations through orderly processes rather than open insubordination if they wish to seek equitable relief from the courts.
