United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-20438

Mari Leigh Oliver, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Bret Champion; Brian Greeney; Thomas Hensley; 

Kimberley Walters; Lance Alexander; Stephen 

Naetzker; Jennifer Walton; Klein Independent School 

District; Angie Richard, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CV-3234

Before Smith, Stewart, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Texas Education Code mandates that school districts “require 

students, once during each school day,” to recite the “pledge of allegiance to 

the United States.” Tex. Educ. Code § 25.082(b)(1). The Code contains 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 26, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-20438 Document: 00516069346 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2021
No. 20-20438

2

a parental opt-out provision whereby parents or guardians, upon “written 

request,” may excuse their children from reciting the pledge. Id. § 25.082(c).

The Klein Independent School District has adopted a district-wide policy 

that tracks the state’s pledge mandate. 

Mari Oliver attended a high school within Klein ISD. She has sued 

teachers, administrators, and Klein ISD under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming

they all violated her First Amendment right against compelled speech by 

requiring her to recite the pledge.1 Importantly, Oliver admits that her claim 

is not predicated on a contention that the pledge mandate, itself, is 

unconstitutional.2 Rather, Oliver’s claim is predicated on her contention that 

her mother complied with the parental opt-out provision—something the 

parties vigorously dispute. We express no opinion on that dispute. 

Nonetheless, we AFFIRM summary judgment for Defendants. 

We review summary judgment de novo. S. ex rel. E.H.F. v. Garza, 912 

F.3d 778, 783 (5th Cir. 2019). We will reverse only if a genuine dispute of 

material fact exists or if the nonmovant was not entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law. Id. A material-fact dispute is “genuine” only “if the evidence 

is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving 

party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 

1 On appeal, Oliver adequately briefs only her compelled-speech claim—that the 

Defendants violated her right “to not participate in the pledge.” Though her complaint 

alleged other claims as well, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 requires appellants to 

provide “reasons,” with “citations to the authorities and parts of the record” supporting 

them, that warrant reversal. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Only Oliver’s compelledspeech claim meets Rule 28’s standard. Therefore, Oliver has waived appellate review of 

any other claims against the Defendants. Trevino v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 173, 181 n.3 (5th Cir. 

1999) (holding “undeveloped,” “inadequately argued” issues waived on appeal).

2 Because Oliver does not challenge the pledge mandate’s constitutionality, we 

must presume its constitutionality. See McDonald v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 394 U.S. 802, 

809 (1969) (“Legislatures are presumed to have acted constitutionally . . . .”).

Case: 20-20438 Document: 00516069346 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2021
No. 20-20438

3

Despite Oliver’s belief otherwise, a reasonable jury could not return a 

verdict in her favor. Even if her mother complied with the parental opt-out 

provision, the record demonstrates that none of the Defendants ever 

compelled Oliver to recite the pledge. Cf. Tex. Educ. Code § 25.082(b)–

(c) (excusing a student from reciting the pledge upon written request of a 

parent). Since Oliver “has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential 

element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof,” 

Defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 

U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-20438 Document: 00516069346 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/26/2021