Shanley v. Northeast Independent School District

Last updated
Shanley v. Northeast
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Full case nameMark Stephen Shanley, by Next Friend, et al., v. Northeast Independent School District, Bexar County, Texas, etc., et al.
DecidedJune 9 1972
Citation(s)462 F.2d 960
Case history
Prior historyPlaintiffs sought injunctive relief from school's sanctions, District Court found case "wholly without merit" and dismissed on own motion
Subsequent historyexpedited appeal
Holding
Unreasonable restrictions imposed by public schools on student expression is an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment; District Court reversed by 5th Circuit Appeals Court
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting John Minor Wisdom, Irving Loeb Goldberg, Charles Clark
Case opinions
MajorityGoldberg
ConcurrenceClark
Laws applied
First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment

Shanley v. Northeast Independent School District was a United States Federal Appeals Court decision issued in 1972 that outlined the limited power and reach of a public school system to apply administrative sanctions against the speech or written expression of its students when produced and/or distributed off school grounds and outside school hours. The case involved the suspension of five high school seniors in the North East Independent School District of San Antonio, Texas. The students were accused of publishing an unapproved newsletter called The Awakening and disseminating it to students on a street nearby to the school grounds. The newsletter contained a statements advocating a review of marijuana laws, providing information about birth control, and other topics the school judged to be inappropriate and controversial. The principal suspended the five students for violating a school board policy which read,

...any attempt to avoid the school's established procedure for administrative approval of activities such as the production for distribution and/or distribution of petitions or printed documents of any kind, sort, or type without the specific approval of the principal shall be cause for suspension and, if in the judgment of the principal, there is justification, for referral to the office of the Superintendent with a recommendation for expulsion... [1]

The students each ranked as "good" or "excellent" students, and the suspensions resulted in a substantial drop in their school scores, having a potentially significant impact on their college admissions. The North East Independent school board upheld the suspensions, and the parents of the students then sought both temporary and permanent injunctive relief in the federal courts. A Texas district court denied all relief and dismissed the plaintiffs' case on its own motion, judging the case to be "wholly without merit". [1] The district court also refused the plaintiff's request for injunction until an appeal could be heard. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals expedited the appeal and itself issued an injunction against the school to preserve the students' academic records while the appeal went forward.

Following arguments from all parties, the Appeals Court found the North East school district's speech policy failed to set any limits with regard to time, place, or content of expression that required students to seek prior approval from the school. The Court also found the school district failed to outline any administrative course of action enabling students to appeal when charged with violating the broadly applied policy. [2] Schools can limit the expression of its students when it materially and substantially interferes with school activities, or with the rights of teachers and other students, the Court wrote in its decision. But schools cannot restrict such expression on the sole basis that some school officials, students or parents object to the content.

Taking note of the almost unprecedented latitude granted by the policy to school officials to regulate students' out-of-school behavior, the Court weighed several factors to judge whether the policy established reasonable or unreasonable limits on student expression.

It is clear...that the authority of the school board to balance school discipline against the First Amendment by forbidding or punishing off-campus activity cannot exceed its authority to forbid or punish on-campus activity. Therefore, we must first examine the authority of the school board to order the actions of students on school grounds and within school hours.

Quoting from another case relating to policies regulating student speech while at school, Burnside v. Byars , the Court went on to say

In formulating regulations, including those pertaining to the discipline of school children, school officials have a wide latitude of discretion. But the school is always bound by the requirement that the rules and regulations must be reasonable. It is not for us to consider whether such rules are wise or expedient but merely whether they are a reasonable exercise of the power and discretion of the school authorities . . . . [W]e must also emphasize that school officials cannot ignore expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend. They cannot infringe on their students' right to free and unrestricted expression as guaranteed to them under the First Amendment to the Constitution, where the exercise of such rights in the school buildings and schoolrooms do not materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.

While schools can establish policies restraining student expression which are reasonable and which are intended to prevent disruptions within their schools, the Court wrote, the "burden of demonstrating reasonableness becomes geometrically heavier as its decision begins to focus upon the content of materials that are not obscene, libelous, or inflammatory". [1]

The Fifth Circuit Appeals Court reversed the lower court, finding for the Plaintiff that the North East Independent School District policy was overly broad, and the district's suspension of those five students had interfered with their rights to free speech as guaranteed under the First and the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. [1]

Related Research Articles

School uniform Standardized outfit worn by students of an educational institution

A school uniform is a uniform worn by students primarily for a school or otherwise an educational institution. They are common in primary and secondary schools in various countries.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that defined First Amendment rights of students in U.S. public schools. The Tinker test, also known as the "substantial disruption" test, is still used by courts today to determine whether a school's interest to prevent disruption infringes upon students' First Amendment rights.

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. It ruled that a policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at high school football games violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Oral arguments were heard March 29, 2000. The court announced its decision on June 19, holding the policy unconstitutional in a 6–3 decision.

Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court involving free speech in public schools. High school student Matthew Fraser was suspended from school in the Bethel School District in Washington for making a speech including sexual innuendo at a school assembly. The Supreme Court held that his suspension did not violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

North East Independent School District School district in Texas

The North East Independent School District is a school district located in San Antonio, Texas, United States. North East ISD serves the north central and northeast areas of Bexar County, covering approximately 144 square miles (370 km2). North East ISD serves the cities of Castle Hills, Hill Country Village, Hollywood Park, Windcrest, and portions of San Antonio, Balcones Heights, Terrell Hills, and Timberwood Park. North East ISD is the second largest school district serving the San Antonio area by student attendance, following Northside.

<i>Saxe v. State College Area School District</i>

Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200, was a case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that ruled that the State College Area School District's policy restricting "unwelcome" and "offensive" speech on public school grounds violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case where the Court held, 5–4, that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use at or across the street from a school-supervised event. In 2002, Juneau-Douglas High School principal Deborah Morse suspended Joseph Frederick after he displayed a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" [sic] across the street from the school during the 2002 Winter Olympics torch relay. Frederick sued, claiming his constitutional rights to free speech were violated. His suit was dismissed by the federal district court, but on appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the ruling, concluding that Frederick's speech rights were violated. The case then went on to the Supreme Court.

<i>Guiles v. Marineau</i>

In Guiles v. Marineau, 461 F.3d 320, cert. denied by 127 S.Ct. 3054 (2007), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States protect the right of a student in the public schools to wear a shirt insulting the President of the United States and depicting images relating to drugs and alcohol.

California Education Code 48907

California Education Code 48907 (1977), also known as the California Student Free Expression Law, acts as a counter to the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Supreme Court ruling, which limited the freedom of speech granted to public high school newspapers. The Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier decision held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as "forums for student expression" are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established as forums for student expression. Ed Code 48907 affirms the right of high school newspapers to publish whatever they choose, so long as the content isn't explicitly obscene, libelous, or slanderous, and doesn’t incite students to violate any laws or school regulations. The newspaper content must also pass the minimal disruption test set forth in the Supreme Court ruling on Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). In contrast with Hazelwood, which limited First Amendment protection to only those high school newspapers that had, through practice or policy, been established as forums for student expression, Ed Code 48907 affirms the right of all newspapers to the freedom of expression.

Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (AOSI) is a U.S. public charity organized in 2003 under the laws of the State of Delaware.

The issue of school speech or curricular speech as it relates to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution has been the center of controversy and litigation since the mid-20th century. The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech applies to students in the public schools. In the landmark decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the U.S. Supreme Court formally recognized that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate".

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland, 560 F.3d 443, is a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals involving a constitutional challenge—both facially and as-applied to internet communications—to an Ohio statute prohibiting the dissemination or display to juveniles of certain sexually-explicit materials or performances. The Sixth Circuit panel declined to resolve the constitutional issue but, instead, certified two questions to the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of the statute. The Ohio Supreme Court answered both questions affirmatively and placed a narrowing construction on the statute. Since the Ohio Supreme Court's decision, the Sixth Circuit has not reheard the case.

Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Vermont statute that restricted the sale, disclosure, and use of records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors violated the First Amendment.

National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act, as amended in 1990,, was facially valid, as it neither inherently interfered with First Amendment rights nor violated constitutional vagueness principles. The act in question required the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to ensure that "artistic excellence and artistic merit are the criteria by which [grant] applications are judged, taking into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public". Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.

Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case with the National Park Service's regulation which specifically prohibited sleeping in Lafayette Park and the National Mall at issue. The Community for Creative Non-Violence (CCNV) group had planned to hold a demonstration on the National Mall and Lafayette Park where they would erect tent cities to raise awareness of the situation of the homeless. The group obtained the correct permits for a seven-day demonstration starting on the first day of winter. The Park Service however denied the request that participants be able to sleep in the tents. The CCNV challenged this regulation on the basis that it violated their First Amendment right.

<i>Hedges v. Obama</i> American legal case

Hedges v. Obama was a lawsuit filed in January 2012 against the Obama administration and members of the U.S. Congress by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges, challenging the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). The legislation permitted the U.S. government to indefinitely detain people "who are part of or substantially support Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States". The plaintiffs contended that Section 1021(b)(2) of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. on "suspicion of providing substantial support" to groups engaged in hostilities against the U.S. such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban respectively that the NDAA arms the U.S. military with the ability to imprison indefinitely journalists, activists and human-rights workers based on vague allegations.

Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977), often shortened to Mt. Healthy v. Doyle, was a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision arising from a fired teacher's lawsuit against his former employer, the Mount Healthy City Schools. The Court considered three issues: whether federal-question jurisdiction existed in the case, whether the Eleventh Amendment barred federal lawsuits against school districts, and whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevented the district, as a government agency, from firing or otherwise disciplining an employee for constitutionally protected speech on a matter of public concern where the same action might have taken place for other, unprotected activities. Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion.

Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410 (1979), is a United States Supreme Court decision on the free speech rights of public employees. The Court held unanimously in favor of a schoolteacher fired for her critical remarks in conversations with her principal. Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion, with a short concurrence by John Paul Stevens.

Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 484 U.S. 260 (1988), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established as forums for student expression.

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the ability of schools to regulate student speech made off-campus, such as speech made on social media. The case challenged past interpretation of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and Bethel School District v. Fraser, previous Supreme Court decisions related to student speech which may be disruptive to the educational environment, in light of online communications.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Shanley v. Northeast Independent School District Bexar County Texas - 462 F.2d 960, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, June 9, 1972, text provided by openjurist
  2. ↑ "Appeal", Chui, et al v. Plano Independent School District, No. 02-41218, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, July 15, 2003, pdf available Sons of Confederate Veterans
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.