Scott v. Napa Valley Unified Sch. Dist., No. 26-37082 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 2, 2007)
A California trial court has issued a preliminary injunction enjoining a middle school from enforcing its dress code policy that requires students to wear apparel that is plain, i.e., "no pictures, patterns, stripes or logos of any size or kind." The dress code was adopted to address the emerging problem of gangs in the school. During the 2006-2007 school year several students at Redwood Middle School (RMS) were disciplined for wearing non-conforming apparel, including blue jeans, socks with the image of the Winnie-the-Pooh Tigger character, an American Cancer pink ribbon, and a backpack bearing the manufacturer’s name. The students filed suit in Napa County Superior Court against Napa Valley Unified School District (NVUSD), various NVUSD officials, and the principal of RMS. The suit alleges the dress code violates the free speech guarantees in United States and California Constitutions, § 48907 of the California Education Code (CEC), and other provisions of the CEC pertaining to school uniforms. The students filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to bar RMS officials from enforcing the dress code until the court makes a decision on the merits of the students’ claims.
The court first addressed the free speech claims under the federal and state constitutions. It noted that the principle enunciated in Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969), that student expression is protected under the U.S. Constitution provided it does not "materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school," had been recently reconfirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Morse v. Frederick, 2007 WL 1804317 (U.S. June 25, 2007). The students argued the policy was contrary to the precepts set forth in Tinker and, therefore, violated their free speech rights. They contended that the dress code’s absolute ban on expressive content is overbroad resulting in the policy prohibiting "wearing items that articulate protected expressive content." The students also asserted that the policy’s broad restrictions on speech bear no substantial relationship to the proffered purpose of the policy to deter gang related activity at the school. NCUSD countered that while Tinker and its progeny have upheld the proposition that students’ "purely political speech" is constitutionally protected, recent federal case law makes it clear students have no right to a make a fashion statement. The court acknowledged that only apparel that can be described as "imbued with elements of communication which conveys[s] a particularized message that will be understood by those who view it" is constitutionally protected. However, it rejected NVUSD’s characterization of the students’ evidence, finding that "the evidence also establishes that certain clothing and accessories prohibited by the attire policy, [such as] the D.A.R.E t-shirt, the Jesus Freak t-shirt and the breast cancer awareness pin, did convey a particularized message subject to First Amendment protection."
Having determined that some of the students had engaged in expressive conduct that conveyed a particularized message, the court stated that the burden was on NVUSD to produce evidence justifying the policy’s abridgement of students’ constitutional free speech rights. It concluded that NVUSD’s evidence, the principal’s testimony that the policy makes it easier to distinguish RMS students from campus intruders and to detect and remove gang-related symbols, failed to further the asserted justification for the policy of providing a safe school environment and preventing gang activity on campus. The court conceded that an appropriately tailored dress code policy that prohibits gang related apparel, symbols, and other items would be constitutionally permissible and authorized by state statute. However, while the policy’s broad reach encompassed gang-related apparel, the justification for the policy only demonstrated that it may facilitate the identification of outsiders who happen to come on campus wearing non-approved clothing. As a result, the court found the policy was not tailored to meet NVUSD’s legitimate gang prevention concerns. It also found that the policy violated the CEC provisions raised in the students’ claims.
Scott v. Napa Valley Unified Sch. Dist., No. 26-37082 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 2, 2007)
[Full opinion]
[Editor’s Note: Background on the lawsuit and the Legal Clips summary of the Morse decision are provided below.]
[NSBA School Law pages on student speech disputes]
[NSBA School Law pages on Morse v. Fredrick]