6 minute read
Publication Sneak Peek
School Law Review
This segment features content from other AAEA publications. School Law Review is a quarterly publication available to subscribing districts. The following excerpt comes from the September 2022 issue.
RECENT COURT DECISIONS CONCERNING FIRST & FOURTH AMENDMENTS
T.R. v. Lamar County Bd. of Educ., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (February 4, 2022)
A 14-year-old student filed suit claiming her rights under the 4 th Amendment were violated after she was subjected to strip searches twice for marijuana after a teacher smelled marijuana burning in the classroom. The district found drug paraphernalia in the student’s backpack but no drugs. The teen was then strip searched twice in front of an open window at the school.
The district court dismissed the suit but the circuit court reversed on appeal, ruling that the searches were excessively intrusive because there was no threat or danger to warrant a strip search. Further, the second search occurred shortly after the first search, and the student had not left the location where the first search occurred.
Riley’s v. Elsasser, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (March 17, 2022)
A school district vendor who operated a farm to which the district’s students went on field trips sued the district alleging 1 st Amendment
retaliation after it cancelled trips to the farm following the owner’s controversial tweets. Parents had complained and expressed concern about the owner’s tweets.
The circuit court reversed the lower court's dismissal of the claim, ruling that since the school presented no evidence of the number of parent complaints and there was only sparse media coverage of the incident, the district failed to establish a significant disruption of the school environment. Further, the owner’s tweets were on his personal social media account and addressed the core of protected 1 st Amendment activity.
Houston Cmty. College v. Wilson, U.S. Supreme Court (March 24, 2022)
An elected board member filed suit in federal court alleging that he was subjected to retaliation in violation of the 1 st Amendment. The board member sued the board in state court after the board reprimanded him for publicizing his view on an issue before the board, then censured him after he sued the board in state court. The board responded to the board member’s federal claim by asserting that he could not claim that the censure was an adverse action because the censure was not defamatory, did not deter the board member from doing his job, deny him any privilege of office, or deter him from exercising his right to speak.
The district court dismissed the board member’s claim, but the 5 th Circuit held that his 1 st Amendment retaliation claim could proceed. The Supreme Court held that elected bodies have long exercised the power to censure their members, not only for objectionable speech directed at fellow members, but also for public remarks thought to be damaging. Further, the Court stated that the board member, as an elected official, consented to public office and put his character in issue. The censure was a form of speech concerning the public conduct of a fellow board member and therefore entitled to its own protection under the 1st Amendment.
DeBenedetto v. Lacey Bd. of Educ., U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (March 29, 2022)
A student sued a district alleging that it violated the 1 st Amendment when he was suspended for posting a Snapchat in support of a school shooter while at his home. The student first posted that bullets he ordered were being shipped to his home. A few days later, the shooting occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas in Florida. The next day, the student reposted a Snapchat of another student holding a gun with the statement “Round 2 of Florida” and added text to that post supporting that student.
The district court denied the district’s motion to dismiss the case, holding that while off-campus speech is a “murky” subject under the 1 st Amendment, the district failed to show a material and substantial disruption of the school’s operation or a nexus between the place of the speech and the school.
Garnier v. O’Connor-Ratcliff, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (July 27, 2022)
Parents sued a district alleging that their free speech rights under the First Amendment were violated when the district’s board blocked them from social media pages board members had used to communicate with constituents about public issues. The parents frequently posted critical comments of the board on the members’ pages. The parents sought an injunction forcing the board members to unblock them from the social media platforms.
On appeal, the circuit court affirmed the injunctive relief awarded to the parents, finding that the board members used their social media pages as a public forum in carrying out their official duties and that the restrictions imposed on the parents’ expression were not appropriately tailored to serve a significant governmental interest and so were invalid.
C.1.G. v. Siegfried, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (July 6, 2022)
A student who was expelled for an alleged anti-Semitic Snapchat post claimed the district violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The student’s post was made while he was off-campus. The father of a student was shown the post and was concerned enough to call the police, who visited the student’s home and found no threat. Another parent emailed the school and community leaders about the post. After an investigation, the district suspended then expelled the student for violating district policies.
The district court dismissed the claim, concluding that the school had the authority to discipline the student since it was foreseeable that the student’s post could cause substantial disruption and interfere with the rights of others. On appeal, the circuit court reversed, holding that the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Mahanoy imposed a heavy burden to justify interventions such as expulsion or other student discipline when off-campus speech that is not a true threat or obscene is at issue.
