Summary
The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment for a school principal in a First Amendment action involving a first-grade student’s drawing containing the words “Black Lives Mater [sic] any life.” The court held that elementary students’ speech receives First Amendment protection, that Tinker applies in the elementary-school context, and that age is relevant but not dispositive. It remanded because genuine disputes of material fact remained regarding whether the school’s actions were reasonably necessary to protect another student’s rights and whether the actions constituted retaliation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether elementary-school students' speech is protected by the First Amendment and subject to the Tinker balancing test.
- Whether a student's young age is a relevant but dispositive factor in determining whether a school may restrict the student's speech.
- Whether, under Tinker, school officials bear the burden of showing that restrictions on elementary-student speech were reasonably necessary to protect students' safety and well-being.
- Whether genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on B.B.'s First Amendment speech claim.
- Whether summary judgment on B.B.'s First Amendment retaliation claim should be vacated when it was based on the conclusion that her drawing was not protected speech.
Holdings
- Elementary-school students' speech is protected by the First Amendment, and the Tinker balancing test applies in the elementary-school student-speech context.
- Elementary students' young age is a relevant but non-dispositive factor under the Tinker balancing test.
- When school officials restrict a student's speech under Tinker, they bear the burden of showing that their actions were reasonably undertaken or reasonably necessary to protect the safety and well-being of students.
- Summary judgment for Becerra was improper because genuine disputes of material fact existed concerning whether the drawing invaded M.C.'s rights and whether Becerra's actions were reasonably necessary to protect student safety and well-being.
- The grant of summary judgment on B.B.'s First Amendment retaliation claim was vacated because it rested on the erroneous determination that the drawing was not protected speech, and material factual issues may bear on the retaliation elements.
Key quotations
“elementary students’ speech is protected by the First Amendment, the age of the students is a relevant factor under Tinker, and schools may restrict students’ speech only when the restriction is reasonably necessary to protect the safety and well-being of its students.” (at 6)
“In sum, elementary students’ speech is protected by the First Amendment, Tinker applies in the elementary student speech context, and elementary students’ young age is a relevant factor.” (at 16)
“Age is relevant as younger students are more vulnerable than students who are approaching adulthood. But, as all students, including elementary school students, have First Amendment rights, the school has the burden, under the Tinker balancing test, of showing that its actions were reasonably undertaken to protect the safety and well-being of its students.” (at 20)
“Although schools have comprehensive authority to “prescribe and control conduct” in schools, see Tinker, 393 U.S. at 507, when their actions infringe on a student’s First Amendment rights to expression, even for an elementary school student, the school has the burden of showing that its actions were reasonably undertaken to protect the safety and well-being of its students.” (at 25)
Factual background
In March 2021, first-grade student B.B. drew a picture of children holding hands that included the words "Black Lives Mater [sic] any life" and gave it to M.C., an African American classmate. After M.C.'s mother complained to the school principal, Jesus Becerra allegedly told B.B. that the drawing was inappropriate or racist, required her to apologize, prohibited her from giving drawings to classmates, and may have caused her to miss recess. The parties disputed whether the drawing affected M.C., whether Becerra reasonably viewed it as an invasion of M.C.'s right to be secure and left alone, and whether B.B. was actually punished.
Procedural history
B.B., through her mother, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California after a school principal allegedly restricted and punished her for giving an elementary-school classmate a drawing containing the words "Black Lives Mater [sic] any life." The district court dismissed various claims, granted summary judgment to Jesus Becerra and a school counselor on B.B.'s remaining First Amendment claims, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims. B.B. timely appealed only the summary judgment ruling on her First Amendment claims against Becerra.
Remand instructions
The district court must reconsider B.B.'s First Amendment speech and retaliation claims under the Tinker balancing standard, including whether the restrictions were reasonably necessary to protect student safety and well-being and resolving the material factual disputes through appropriate further proceedings. The panel declined to address qualified immunity and other dispositive issues in the first instance.