New Beverly Hills Unified policy prevents some nonresident children from attending district schools

The Los Angeles Times reports that a new Beverly Hills Unified policy has resulted in permits being denied to about 200 families whose nonresident children had been attending school in the district.  The Beverly Hills Board of Education voted earlier this year to restrict permits for students who live outside the city to attend district schools.  The district changed the way it funded schools, and officials argued that Beverly Hills taxpayers should not have to subsidize the cost of nonresident students attending school.

Under the new policy, nonresident seventh graders will be allowed to finish middle school in Beverly Hills.  Likewise, nonresident students currently in high school will be allowed to continue to graduation.  Elementary school students and those about to start high school, however, will not be allowed to return for the upcoming school year.

Many of the impacted families have appealed their child’s case to the county.  Four “yes” votes out of a seven member panel are required to overturn the school district’s decision.  The cases are decided based on factors that include the availability of special programs that are not offered in the student’s home district, transportation problems for the family, and child care.  Of the 44 appeals cases heard so far, 30 have been denied by the panel.  Many more cases are currently pending, with 30 to 40 more on the agenda over the next few weeks.  The board is considering having a separate panel decide some cases in order to ease the backlog.

In the face of the many appeals being heard by the board, there have been complaints about the voting procedure.  Some families have said that they did not receive a fair hearing because not all seven members of the panel were present for the vote in their case.  This can result in different decisions being reached depending on the number of board members present on the day of a particular  hearing.  One board member has suggested revising the four-vote requirement so that only three votes are needed to win an appeal if some board members are absent.

Beverly Hills Board of Education President Steven Fenton said restricting permit students will mean more money for his district, which is in a period of transition with a new interim principal at Beverly Hills High School, three new elementary school principals and a new interim superintendent.  Fenton said he has friends who have appeared before the county board and lost. “I haven’t taken satisfaction in any of this,” he said.

Source:  Los Angeles Times, 7/25/10, By Carla Rivera

[Editor's note:  Although residency requirements for student attendance most often are dictated by state statute, school districts vary widely on their policies for accepting nonresident students.  In some states, nonresidents are required to pay tuition to the receiving district.  In California, a district may issue a "permit" allowing a nonresident to attend school; a school board's decision to deny the permit may be appealed to the county.  The California School Boards Association provides a sample board bylaw setting out state law requirements for interdistrict attendance appeals, at the first link below.]

CSBA Sample Board Bylaw on Interdistrict Attendance Appeals

School districts not required to show exact cost to comply with state-imposed record keeping duties to prove violation of Michigan constitution’s prohibition on unfunded mandates

The Michigan Supreme Court, in a 4-3 split, has ruled that school districts claiming a violation of the state constitution’s prohibition on unfunded mandates are not required to prove exactly how much the school districts’ costs increased as a result of the mandate.  The supreme court affirmed the court of appeals’ decision granting the plaintiffs a declaratory judgment on this claim.  The court also concluded that the plaintiffs’ suit had been “sustained” within the meaning of state constitutional, allowing the plaintiffs to recover attorney fees.

The language of the Headlee Amendment to the Michigan Constitution, passed by voters in 1978,  prohibits the state (through the legislature or a state agency) from increasing the level of any activity or service provided by a unit of local government beyond that required by existing law unless the state appropriates and disburses funds adequate to pay for the necessary increased costs.  The state has required Michigan public school districts to report certain information, including pupil counts and financial data, for many years.  In 2000, however, the Governor issued Executive Order No. 2000-9, which established the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI).  Along with later legislation, it required school districts actively to participate in collecting, maintaining, and reporting various types of data that the state then warehoused in several databases.  Under the legislation, in order to receive yearly funding, school districts must furnish all data that the state considers necessary for the administration of the State School Aid Act.  These actions enabled the state to to satisfy the accountability standards of the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

The plaintiffs, are 456 Michigan school districts and a taxpayer from each district.  They filed suit in November 2000 alleging that the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in EO 2000-9 and the state statute constituted an unfunded mandate and violated the Headlee Amendment. In 2004, the Michigan Supreme Court dismissed the bulk of their claims, but left intact the claim based on record keeping requirements.

It remanded the case to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which ruled that the record keeping obligations imposed on local school districts by state and federal law violate the Headlee Amendment provision prohibiting unfunded mandates. However, it denied the plaintiffs’ claim for attorney fees on the ground that their claim had not been “sustained” within the constitutional meaning of the word.

The Michigan Supreme Court found that the Headlee Amendment imposed two requirements on the state: “maintenance of support” (MOS) and “prohibition on unfunded mandates” or POUM. Only the POUM provision was applicable to the present case. The question at issue is: “who bears the burden of showing that the new or increased activity or service resulted in necessary increased costs.”

The supreme court, agreeing with the court of appeals, found that the record keeping requirements of the executive and the subsequent legislative mandate imposed more activities than the law required before, in contravention of the Headlee Amendment, and the state failed to fund them as required by the POUM provision. In addition,  it found the state had not carried its burden of demonstrating that the school districts’ costs were not increased or that such costs were not “necessary” under the law.  The plaintiffs had demonstrated an increase in the level of record keeping required of the school districts while the state failed to offer any evidence to rebut the  conclusion that its record keeping requirements imposed additional compliance costs on the school districts. It rejected the state’s contention that the plaintiffs could only prevail on their claim if they quantified  the exact amount of those costs. The court stated that neither the Headlee Amendment nor its implementing statute “suggests that plaintiffs bear the burden of proving precisely how much the school districts’ costs increased as a result of the mandate.”

Finally, it reversed the corut of appeals’ ruling on the issue of attorney fees, finding that the plaintiffs had “sustained” their claim within the meaning of the state constitution and were entitlted to such fees regarding the record keeping claim.

Adair v. State, Nos 137424/137453 (Mich. Jul. 14, 2010)

[Editor's Note:  A summary of the Michigan Court of Appeals opinion is available at the first link below.  Two U.S. Courts of Appeal have recently considered challenges to federal NCLB annual testing requirements under that statute's unfunded mandates prohibition, 20 U.S.C. §7907(a).  A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (NY, VT, CT)  recently dismissed such a lawsuit by the State of Connecticut against the U.S. Department of Education (ED), finding the suit not ripe for decision. As a result, the panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the suit without reaching the merits of the case. A summary of the Second Circuit opinion is available at the second link below.

In 2009, the The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (KY, MI, OH, TN), sitting en banc (all active judges participating), split 8-8 on the issue of whether the plaintiffs had stated a valid claim that the mandatory testing provisions of the NCLB violated the unfunded mandates prohibition. As a result of the even split, the Sixth Circuit issued an order affirming the decision of a Michigan district court to dismiss the lawsuit brought by nine school districts in three states and ten education associations along with the National Education Association. A summary of the Sixth Circuit's opinion is available at the third link below.]

NSBA School Law pages on Adair v. State

NSBA Legal Clips archive on Connecticut v. Duncan

NSBA School Law pages on Sch. Dist. of Pontiac v. Duncan

D.C. teachers’ union plans to file class action suit over the firing of 241 teachers

The Washington Teachers Union (WTU) plans to bring a class action suit challenging the recent termination of 241 teachers for poor performance, says the Washington Examiner. WTU President George Parker contends that the terminations are based on a “flawed document” –  the D.C. Public Schools’ teacher and staff evaluation tool, called Impact, which rates teachers from “highly effective” to “ineffective.”  The document was developed by schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee and her staff without input from the union. An “ineffective” rating left 185 of the system’s 4,300 teachers without a job in the fall, about 10 times the average number of firings in similarly sized districts. Another 56 teachers were let go for licensure problems.

Although a terminated teacher may file a grievance challenging the procedural process as flawed, (he/she received only four observations instead of the required fivem, for example), the teacher cannot challenge the substantive findings of the evaluation.

Chancellor Michelle Rhee claims her office intentionally chose not to fire teachers whose process they knew to be flubbed, thus leaving the union with little room for remedy. The suit will focus on those components of the evaluation Parker believes are “unfair,” like the part that bases 5% of a teacher’s overall score on the performance of his or her school. Parker also charges that Impact was implemented in a hasty manner, claiming one year was not adequate for teachers and evaluators to fully understand the expectations.

Source: Washington Examiner, 7/27/10, By Leah Fabel

[Editor's Note: One of the constants in Chancellor Rhee's tenure has been the ongoing battle with the union over the termination of teachers that Rhee's office has determined to be poor performers. In January, the Washington Post reported  that Rhee sent a letter to D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray and members Kwame R. Brown and Marion Barry explaining her controversial statement to a national business magazine regarding some of the 266 teachers laid off in last October's budget cuts. In the brief Fast Company item, which updates a profile published in 2008, Rhee addressed the union allegation that she fabricated the budget crunch to circumvent seniority rules and rid the system of older teachers. "I got rid of teachers who had hit children, who had had sex with children, who had missed 78 days of school. Why wouldn't we take those things into consideration?" she was quoted as saying. A summary of the article is available below.]

NSBA School Law pages on D.C. teacher lay offs

Narrow majority of Texas State Board of Education approves use of public funds for charter school construction

The Texas State Board of Education (TBOE) has approved the use of the state’s education trust fund for charter school facilities, says the Dallas Morning News. There is no specific plan for using the funds, and the motion approved by board members on a 7-6 vote would make such action contingent on approval from the attorney general or on legislation that sanctions the idea.  The decision could allow up to $100 million of the Permanent School Fund to be used to construct or purchase buildings that would be leased to some of the state’s 460 independent charter schools.

Although charter schools are public schools and receive approximately $6,500 a year per student from the state, they are independently operated and  exempt from many of the restrictions governing regular public schools. Charters receive  no money for facilities. As a result, a number of the schools are located in strip malls, old warehouses and portable buildings. Geraldine Miller,one of the board members opposed to proposal, contends  the Texas Constitution “very clearly states” that money from the fund can only be spent on textbooks and other instructional materials. Board member David Bradley, leading proponent of the proposal, emphasized any use of the funds for charter schools was still several months off and would not occur without approval of the attorney general.  “Nobody is going to be writing a check for anything,” he said. “It will take nine months just to get the attorney general’s opinion.” Approximately 120,000 students are enrolled in charter schools, which amounts to 3% of the total public school student population in Texas.

Dallas Morning News, 7/23/10, By Terrence Stutz

[Editor's Note: One of the greatest concerns for a local school district is diversion of  public funds earmarked for the district to charter schools. For example, in May, Courthouse News Service reported that Kansas City School District (KCSD)  filed a suit in a Missouri state court against three charter schools, alleging the state illegally diverted $6.1 million from its budget to Kansas City charter schools. A summary of the article is available below.]

NSBA Legal Clips archives on KCSD funding suit

A number of school districts in New York State require foreign students to submit immigration documents to enroll in school

According to the New York Times, 20% of school districts in the state of New York are requiring students to produce documents establishing their valid immigration status or asking the parents for information only legally documented immigrants can provide. These districts are doing so even though U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Plyler v. Doe prohibits districts from denying the children of undocumented parents access to public education.  The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) has drawn up a list of 139 school districts, but has not found any children turned away for lack of immigration paperwork. Nonetheless, NYCLU sent a  letter to the state’s education commissioner warning that the requirements listed by many registrars, however free of discriminatory intent, “will inevitably discourage families from enrolling in school for fear that they would be reported to federal immigration authorities.”

The state Department of Education (NYDE) has declined to address the issue directly,unlike several other states,  including Maryland, Nebraska and New Jersey, where education officials have taken strong steps in recent years to halt similar practices. NYDE spokesman Jonathan Burman said, “It is the responsibility of each local school district to ensure that it complies with all laws and decisions regarding student registration.”  He added,  “Under New York’s education law, anyone who is aggrieved by an action or decision of a district that allegedly violates the law may appeal to the commissioner for a review of that action or decision.”

NYCLU also sent letters to the 139 school districts that it identified as having policies and practices that “discriminate against undocumented children and are unconstitutional.” A number of the districts express surprised and concern that immigration-related documents were demanded in their online registration packets. District officials pointed out that some forms had been copied from another district’s website. Registration personnel at approximately a half-dozen of the districts said that no child had been rejected for lack of immigration paperwork or a Social Security number. Some districts immediately changed language they identified as troublesome.

Source: New York Times, 7/22/10, By Nina Bernstein

[Editor's Note: In 2009, the Associated Press reported that following the Maryland Board of Education's ruling that Frederick County could not require local school officials to seek the immigration status of students without a valid reason, two county commissioners introduced a legislative proposal that would request state lawmakers pass legislation to require a count of students with questionable immigration status in the county's public schools. A summary of the article is available below.  NSBA, in partnership with the NEA, has published a guide for school districts on the legal issues surrounding the education of undocumented students.  The guide was authored byCOSA member John Borkowski, and is available at the second link below.]

NSBA School Law pages on proposed Maryland immigration legislation

Legal Issues for School Districts Related to the Education of Undocumented Children

Cash strapped Rhode Island school district will not contest suit over alleged religious school banner

The Providence Journal reports that the Cranston School Committee (CSC) has decided not to defend a legal challenge to Cranston High School’s (CHS) school prayer. Instead, Committee members are considering revising the prayer by eliminating all religious references, turning it into a creed. The dispute began when the Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU-RI) sent a letter to Superintendent Peter L. Nero detailing an unidentified parent’s complaint about the religious nature of the prayer banner, which hangs at the school. ACLU-RI executive director Steven Brown contends, based on the U.S. Supreme Court  decision in Lee v. Weisman [505 U.S. 577 (1992)], that the prayer violates the First Amendment. In addition he pointed out school district policy stating, “The proper setting for religious observance is the home and the place of worship.” “As it’s currently written, it’s a prayer,” Brown said. “It asks somebody for help, and who that somebody is is fairly clear even if you take that salutation off.”

The school prayer has been posted in the auditorium since CHS opened in 1958. According to School Committee Chairman Michael A. Traficante, “The prayer contains some rather significant and appropriate words and speaks to things like ethics, character and respect.”  He added, “I think it’s an argument over very little,” but “our constituents expect us to abide by the law.” The school district is in difficult financial straits after losing a school finance suit against the City of Cranston.  That suit, on which the district spent approximately $250,000, resulted in the district being obligated to repay the city more than $6 million in loans over the next five years. Nero noted that to litigate a case that would likely go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Source: Providence Journal, 7/22/10, By Maria Armental

[Editor's Note: In May, the Chicago Tribune reported that an Indiana school district would end its practice of screening graduation speeches after a U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining it from allowing any prearranged, predetermined student-led prayer at the high school’s commencement exercises.  The district court  reasoned, under the Supreme Court's decisions in Lee v. Weisman and Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) (holding student led prayer at school-sponsored football games violation of Establishment Clause as it bears imprimatur of the school and places dissenting students in untenable position), that  “school-sanctioned graduation prayer in the secondary school context is unconstitutional when no public forum is offered, whether the ultimate decision to permit a prayer is made by the school itself or by a vote of the student body in an election process devised by the school.”  A summary of the article and link to the decision is available at the first link below.

In April 2009,  a federal district court in Florida  issued a preliminary injunction barring an elementary school’s class practice and scheduled performance of a song titled, "In God We Still Trust" because the  religious nature of  the song violated the Establishment Clause.  The court found the song to be a “patently religious and proselytizing piece” that failed the endorsement test. A summary of the opinion is available at the second link below.]

NSBA Legal Clips archive on Workman v. Greenwood Comty. Sch. Corp.

NSBA School Law pages on S.D. v. St. Johns County Sch. Dist.  

Florida school district’s non-teaching staff agree to furloughs to prevent elimination of jobs

According to the Miami Herald, the unions representing Broward County School District (BCSD) non-teaching employees have agreed to five or six unpaid furlough days during the coming academic year in order to save jobs that would have been eliminated as the district struggles to close an estimated $130 million budget shortfall. Only the Broward Teachers Union (BTU), which represents teachers and technical and educational staff members, has not signed on to the agreement. Although teachers are not subject to the furloughs, negotiations between district officials and BTU are continuing. The bargaining groups taking the furlough days will save jobs in their classification, which means that if BTU does not sign on to the furlough plan, no teacher jobs would be saved.

Without BTU members agreeing to furloughs, the amount saved will be considerably less. Nonetheless,  the concessions mark the first time in recent history that schools employees agreed to accept unpaid days to offset a budget shortfall. Dan Reynolds, president of the Federation of Public and Private Employees, which represents about 9,000 Broward schools workers, said. "By conserving salary dollars, we hope to help the district push back or eliminate the need for additional layoffs and cuts.” Employees will be encouraged to take furlough days during school vacations to minimize the impact on students.

Source: Miami Herald, 7/15/10, By Daniel Chang

[Editor's Note: NSBA's June 2010 Leadership Insider (LI), entitled "Surviving tough budget times," discusses negotiating  with unions for salary cuts, furlough days and other cost saving measures. The June 2010 LI is available below.]

June 2010 LI

 

 

 

 

 

Parent sues school district for bullying of son on school bus

The Ithaca Journalreports that a parent has filed suit against the Trumansburg Central School District (TCSD), in New York, for failing to protect her son from bullying that took place on a school bus after school.  The parent, R.C., alleges that her son, a special needs student then in elementary school in the district, was denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).  The complaint further alleges that the district had a responsibility to protect the student from known risks of harassment and bullying.

According to the complaint, R.C.’s son had been bullied by classmates on several occasions prior to the May 5, 2008 incident on the school bus that led to the lawsuit.  After school on May 5, R.C.’s son sat on the school bus in his assigned seat within sight and hearing of the school bus driver.  Another student on the bus began slapping and kicking R.C.’s son, which he interpreted to be horseplay.  The other student’s actions escalated to kicking, pushing, and taking a pen from the bus driver and making threatening stabbing motions towards R.C.’s son with the pen.

The complaint alleges that the other student next began beating R.C.’s son with his fists.  R.C.’s son then called out to the bus driver for help, as he tried to protect a vulnerable soft spot on his skull from the other student.  The bus driver was within seeing and hearing distance, but allegedly failed to intervene.  Eventually, a third student came forward from the back of the bus to pull apart the two boys.

The events were captured by a video camera on the bus, which the complaint states shows the bus driver repeatedly looking in his rear view mirror and failing to stop the interaction between the two students.  The complaint also alleges that R.C.’s son’s individualized education plan requires that an aide be with him on the school bus to prevent other students from tormenting and bullying him. There was no aide with him on May 5.

In its answer to the complaint, the TCSD denies that it could have foreseen the alleged bullying that took place on May 5, 2008, that the student was a voluntary participant in the conflict and was aware of the risks of roughhousing on the bus.

Source:  Ithaca Journal, 7/19/10, By Liz Lawyer

[The parent's complaint and TCSD's answer are linked below.  The mother's suit is a section 1983 action alleging violations of the IDEA, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, as well as state law tort claims claiming emotional distress.  TCSD claims numerous affirmative defenses.]

Legal complaint

Legal answer

Wisconsin school district did not violate Establishment Clause by holding graduation ceremonies at local church

A Wisconsin federal district court has ruled that a school district did not violate the First Amendment Establishment Clause by holding graduation and senior honors night ceremonies at a local Christian church. It concluded that conducting the ceremonies at such a venue was neither coercive nor had the primary effect of endorsing  religion, nor lead to excessive entanglement with religion. The court also rejected the argument that the use of government funds to lease the church’s facilities constituted an Establishment Clause violation.

In April 2009, Elmbrook Joint Common School District (EJCSD) announced that it intended to hold 2009 graduation ceremonies for two of the school district’s high schools at Elmbrook Church. The plaintiffs, a group of parents, students, and taxpayers, filed suit against EJCSD seeking to enjoin it from holding the ceremonies at the church.   The suit also challenges the practice of one of high school’s holding its senior honors night at the church.  In June 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction regarding the impending graduation ceremonies.  The plaintiffs amended their complaint to request a permanent injunction barring EJCSD from holding school events at any religious venue or, alternatively, requiring religious symbols to be covered.  The plaintiff also sought a declaratory judgment that the proposed actions are unconstitutional, monetary damages, and attorneys’ fees.  The district court granted EJCSD’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaitiffs’ motion, and dismissed the suit.

The plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause challenge was based on four interrelated arguments: (1) holding graduation ceremonies at the church violates the Establishment Clauses’s bar against governmental religious coercion, as discussed in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992); (2) holding graduation ceremonies at the Church constitutes governmental endorsement of religion; (3) EJCSD’s arrangement with the church leads to excessive entanglement between government and religion; and (4) EJCSD is using taxpayer funds impermissibly to promote religion.

In regard to the claim that holding a secular ceremony in a religious venue was akin to the coercion found in Weisman,where participants were exposed to religious prayer, it found that "obligatory participation in a secular graduation ceremony, albeit in a church," was not "sufficiently similar to obligatory participation, even through silence, in religious prayer." It distinguished Weisman from the present case on the ground that unlike Weisman there was no religious exercise at issue in the present case.

The court also found that EJCSD’s practice of holding the graduation ceremonies at the church did not have primary effect of endorsing religion, noting that the endorsement test raised by the plaintiffs is part of a three-prong Establishment Clause test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).  It rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that a reasonable observer would "view [EJCSD's]ct’s selection and use of the Church for graduation ceremonies and … Senior Honors Night as an endorsement of religion." Instead, given the inadequacies of the schools’ facilities and alternative secular venues, "a reasonable observer would fairly understand that [EJCSD's] use of the Church for these events is based on real and practical concerns, and not an impermissible endorsement of religion."

The district court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that its practice of using the church created excessive religious entanglement. It concluded that "the entities have made some effort to avoid entanglement, and given the limited nature of the District’s event specific rental arrangements with the Church, excessive entanglement of the type proscribed by the Establishment Clause is lacking." 

Lastly, the district court disposed of the government funds argument, pointing out that the arrangement with the church was a "common fee-for-use arrangement that mirrors rental arrangements between the Church and other entities." It also stressed that  the secular purpose of the arrangement undercut the plaintiffs’ contention that the funds have the effect of aiding religion.

Does 1,7, 8 and 9 v. Elmbrook Joint Common Sch. Dist. , No. 09-0409 (E.D. Wis. Jul. 19, 2010)

[Editor's Note: In May, a federal district court in Connecticut, based on similar facts, issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting a school district from holding its two high schools’ 2010 graduation ceremonies at a local Christian church. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction and a substantial likelihood of success on the merits that holding the graduation ceremonies at the church would violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. A summary of the opinion is available at the first link below.  In June, the school district indicated that it would not pursue further an expedited appeal on the graduation ruling.  See the second link below.]

NSBA Legal Clips archives on Does 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 v. Enfield Pub. Sch.

NSBA Legal Clips archives on Enfield expedited appeal

Pro-life students bring First Amendment suit against school district

On Point reports that several pro-life high school students have filed a suit against school officials in New Mexico demanding injunctive relief and the return of rubber fetus dolls that were confiscated.  Liberty Counsel, a conservative advocacy group, is representing the plaintiffs.

The students, members of a religious youth group called Relentless in Roswell, allege that they have a constitutional right to express their religious and pro-life views.   Students had previously handed out religious materials but this time the principals at two high schools said that the students had offended other people by distributing hundreds of two-inch fetus dolls with a verse from the Bible and contact information for a church-affiliated pregnancy counseling center attached. 

The school district has a policy requiring that all promotional activities be approved by the school principal. The fact that this activity did not have prior approval may be part of the school defendants’ defense.  However, the students claim that they were not promoting items but rather ideas.

Source: On Point News, 7/14/10, By Matt Reynolds

[Editor's Note:  In this case,  the plaintiffs allege that school officials prevented them from handing out the rubber fetuses on two occasions, once applying an in-school suspension, and prevented a student from handing out abstinence-themed wristbands on another occasion.  The complaint claims that "With a tangible and compelling communication medium, Plaintiffs sought to inform the other students of the truth about abortion, to point them to God, the Creator and protector of life in the womb, to encourage them to protect the life of the unborn, and to provide information concerning alternatives to abortion that would result in saving the babies instead of destroying them."  They claim that the school officials' actions violated their freedom of speech and free exercise of religion rights, as well as the Establishment Clause the First Amendment by targeting the content of their protected speech.  The complaint is available at the first link below. 

As noted by On Point, a New Jersey federal district court  ruled in April that school officials violated a student’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression when they prohibited her from participating in a national day of silent protest against abortion.  The student had requested permission from the principal to participate, which would have involved remaining silent at school, handing out flyers, and where a  red duct tape band with the work "LIFE" in black marker over her arm and/or mouth.   The court addressed only the armband and the  flyers, finding that the district had failed to show a reasonable belief of substantial disruption with respect to either. A summary of the opinion, with links to further resources, is available at the second link below.

In June, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (LA, TX, MS) three-judge panel ruled that two Texas elementary school principals were not entitled to qualified immunity from a suit by parents of elementary school children who were prevented from distributing materials with religious messages in school.   The court noted that, "it has been clear for over half a century that the First Amendment protects elementary school students from religious-viewpoint discrimination." A summary of the opinion is at the third link below.]

Legal Complaint

NSBA School Law pages on C.H. v. Bridgeton Bd. of Educ.

NSBA Legal Clips archive on Morgan v. Swanson