Seventh Circuit Clarifies Limits on the Political Expression of Students and Student Groups at School
In a recent decision, E.D. vs. Noblesville School District, the Seventh Circuit considered under what circumstances it is appropriate to limit students’ First Amendment speech rights. Ruling in favor of a school district’s decision to restrict what it perceived as political, pro-life speech, the court set out a framework for schools to use when making similar determinations.
Background
The plaintiff in that case, E.D., started a pro-life student group, Noblesville Students for Life (NSLF). With the approval of the school, NSLF had a visible presence at the school’s activities fair, with E.D. wearing a pro-life shirt, handing out pro-life materials, and displaying pro-life signs in order to recruit members.
To continue to advertise NSLF, E.D. submitted draft flyers to the school for approval. If approved, the flyers would be initialed and could be placed in designated areas throughout the school. In practice, administrators expected the flyers to include only the club’s name and the time, date, and location of the meeting. The flyers submitted by E.D., however, contained images of protestors holding up signs reading “Defund Planned Parenthood” and “I Am the Pro-Life Generation.” The flyers were rejected, and E.D. was encouraged to resubmit picture-less flyers.
E.D. initially agreed to revise the flyers but later took her mother to meet with a different administrator, the dean of students, to encourage him to approve the original flyers. The administration perceived the group as being spearheaded E.D.’s mother as opposed to being “student run,” and found the mother and daughter’s efforts to be insubordinate given the administration’s prior determination and direction to E.D. As a result, the administration suspended NSLF for the remainder of the fall semester. The group was allowed to reapply and was reinstated the next semester.
E.D.’s Suit
E.D. filed suit against the school district and various officials, claiming that the defendants violated the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act by vetoing the original flyers and suspending the club temporarily. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the school district.
Private Student Speech vs. Speech “Bearing the School’s Imprimatur”
The court first considered which of two U.S. Supreme Court precedents governing regulation of student speech applied, Tinker v. Des Moines, which struck down suspensions imposed on high school students for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam, or Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which upheld a school’s decision to remove articles about pregnancy and divorce from the school sponsored newspaper. The court found that the case was more appropriately analyzed under the Kuhlmeier framework, which grants schools greater authority to regulate speech that appears to be authorized by the school. Because E.D.’s flyers would be posted on school walls alongside announcements for school-sponsored events and would have initials from a school administrator, the court determined that a reasonable person could assume that the flyers had an endorsement from the school. As such, the school’s interest in regulating what flyers said was greater than if E.D. were clearly speaking only for herself.
Is There a Legitimate Educational Purpose to the Restriction?
After finding that the district had greater authority to limit E.D.’s speech given the context, the court next considered whether the district’s limitations on speech were reasonable and served a valid educational purpose. The court found that the district’s asserted interest in “maintaining neutrality on matters of political controversy” was sufficient to meet this standard, and that requiring preapproval from the administration and restricting messaging to basic club information was a reasonable way to achieve that goal. Importantly, the court noted that E.D. presented no evidence that any other group was exempted from the same restrictions and the policy was applied uniformly.
The court also considered whether suspension of the club was appropriate and found that it was. The court found that the school has an interest in devoting its resources to student-led and student-run organizations that foster student initiative, and the administration’s belief that E.D.’s mom was improperly leading the group was sufficient reason to suspend it. In addition, E.D.’s attempts to game the system and obtain approval for the flyers after the initial rejection was reasonably considered insubordinate. Because these justifications for suspending the group were not implemented with any intent to suppress E.D.’s views, the court found that the suspension did not violate E.D.’s First Amendment Rights. For the same reasons, there was no violation of the Equal Access Act, which prohibits schools from denying access to opportunities or discriminating against students who wish to conduct meetings because of religious, political, philosophical, or other content-based reasoning.
Takeaways
In determining whether school rules and procedures violate First Amendment rights of students, schools should first determine whether the rule affects private student speech (like Tinker), or speech that could appear to a reasonable person to be school-sponsored or endorsed (like Kuhlmeier and E.D.).
If it is the former, schools should take care to only place restrictions on speech that materially and substantially disrupts the work and discipline of the school. If it is the latter, schools may restrict speech so long as there is a legitimate educational interest in limiting the speech, like a school’s interest in maintaining neutrality on matters of political controversy. If that is the case, schools must take care to adopt rules and policies that are clear and can easily be applied uniformly across all groups to prevent the appearance of favoring any one viewpoint.
Please reach out to your Franczek attorney if you have any questions about how these changes may impact your organization.