Sypniewski v. Warren Hills Regional Board of Education
307 F.3d 243 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public school may not prohibit student expression under a racial harassment policy unless it can show a well-founded expectation of substantial disruption based on a concrete threat, not mere similarity to previously disruptive speech. Furthermore, a school harassment policy is facially overbroad if it prohibits expression solely because it 'creates ill will' among listeners.
Facts:
- Beginning in 1999, Warren Hills High School experienced a series of escalating racial incidents, including a student in blackface with a noose, students wearing Confederate flags, and the formation of a group called 'the Hicks' who observed 'White Power Wednesdays.'
- The racial tension led to racist graffiti, a physical fight between a white and a black student, and the off-campus harassment of a student for associating with African-American classmates, causing significant disruption in the school.
- In response to these disturbances, the Warren Hills School Board adopted a racial harassment policy in March 2001 prohibiting material that is 'racially divisive or creates ill will or hatred.'
- Thomas Sypniewski had previously been seen wearing clothing with Confederate flags and was associated with students in 'the Hicks' group.
- On March 22, 2001, after the policy was enacted, Thomas Sypniewski wore a Jeff Foxworthy T-shirt to school that listed 'Top 10 reasons you might be a Redneck Sports Fan.' The shirt, which had been worn before without incident, did not contain a Confederate flag.
- Vice Principal Griffith suspended Sypniewski for three days for wearing the shirt, citing the word 'redneck' as potentially inciting violence given the school's history of racial tension, though he officially based the suspension on the school's pre-existing dress code.
- The day after the suspension, Thomas's brother, Brian Sypniewski, wore an identical shirt to the middle school, and school officials there determined it was not offensive and did not violate any policies.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Sypniewski and his brothers filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Warren Hills Regional Board of Education and several school officials.
- The Sypniewskis (plaintiffs) moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the school district from enforcing its racial harassment policy.
- The District Court, a federal trial court, denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The Sypniewskis (appellants) appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, with the school board as the appellee.
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 racial harassment policy, enacted in response to significant racial tension, violate the First Amendment when it is applied to prohibit a T-shirt with the word 'redneck' and contains broad prohibitions against material that is 'racially divisive' or 'creates ill will'?
Opinions:
Majority - Scirica, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A public school's racial harassment policy violates the First Amendment when it is applied to prohibit speech that is not forecasted to cause substantial disruption and when it is facially overbroad by banning expression that merely 'creates ill will.' The school district failed to demonstrate a 'well-founded expectation of disruption' from the Jeff Foxworthy T-shirt as required by Tinker v. Des Moines. The link between the word 'redneck' and the disruptive group 'the Hicks' was based on a weak definitional similarity, not on a history of the word 'redneck' itself being used to harass or intimidate students. An 'undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance' is insufficient to restrict student speech. Furthermore, the portion of the policy banning material that 'creates ill will' is unconstitutionally overbroad. Citing Saxe v. State College Area School District, the court held that mere listener offense or hurt feelings is not a sufficient basis to suppress speech. While the remainder of the policy may be permissible in the specific context of Warren Hills' documented history of racial turmoil, the 'ill will' provision sweeps in too much protected expression and must be struck down.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Rosenn, Circuit Judge,
No. The racial harassment policy does not violate the First Amendment either as applied to the T-shirt or on its face. The majority fails to give proper deference to school officials who were 'on the firing line' and best positioned to assess the threat of disruption in a school suffering from extreme racial hostility. Given the history of racially-charged T-shirts causing problems and Thomas Sypniewski's association with the troublemakers, school authorities had a 'well founded expectation of disruption' from the 'redneck' shirt. The phrase 'creates ill will' is not unconstitutionally overbroad because in this context it is synonymous with 'malice,' which is a well-defined legal concept that schools have a legitimate interest in prohibiting to maintain order and civility. The court should not interfere with the school's reasonable efforts to curb student misbehavior and protect the educational environment.
Analysis:
This case refines the application of the Tinker substantial disruption test by requiring a concrete, particularized link between the prohibited speech and the anticipated disruption. It clarifies that a school's forecast of disruption cannot be based on attenuated connections or mere definitional similarities between the banned speech and previously disruptive speech. The court's decision to strike down the 'creates ill will' provision while upholding the rest of the policy (in its specific context) provides a roadmap for schools on how to craft constitutional anti-harassment policies. The ruling emphasizes that such policies must be narrowly tailored to target genuinely disruptive or harassing conduct, not just speech that is offensive or causes discomfort, thereby reinforcing student speech rights even in volatile school environments.
