### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10477

A M , b y and t hr o ugh he r Par e nt s and G uar di ans Ri c har d Dal e M c Al l um J r . a nd S h e lb yV o d a M c A llu m ; A T , b ya n d th r o u g h h e rP a r e n ts a n d G u a r d ia n s D a r r e ll Ray Tho m as a nd J o niAnn Thom as ; M T, b y an d t h rough herPar e nt s a nd G u ardi an s D arrel lR ay T h om as an d Jon iA n n T h om as P l ai n t i f fs - A pp el l an t s v . PA U L E LL I O TT C A SH , i n hi s of f i c i alc apac i t y as Pri nci palof B url es on H i gh S c h o o l ; B OA RD OF T RUS T EE S OF B URL ES ON I NDE P END ENT S CHOO L DI STRI CT D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas
B ef ore G A R W O O D , D E N N IS, an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es . D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg e: P l ai n t i f fs are cu rr e n t a n d for m e r s tu d e n ts o f B u rle son H i gh Sch ool , l ocat ed i n B u rl eson, T exas. In response t o previ ou s i n ci den t s, t h e h i gh sc h ooladop t ed a poli cy prohibi t i n g t h e di spl ay of t h e C on federate f l ag on sc h oolgroun ds. W h en pl ai nt i f fs A

. M
. and A

. T. c am e to s c hoolatt he be gi nni ng of t he s pri ng 2006
s e m e s te rca r r y in gp u r s e s a d o r n e d w ith la r g e im a g e s o f th e C o n fe d e r a te b a t tle f l ag , a dm i ni s t r at o r s r e qui r e d t he m t o ce as e ca r r yi ng t he pur s e s ( givi ng t he m t he opti on of

l eaving t h e p u rses in the ad m i n i st rat i ve of f i ces u n t i lsch oolend ed f or United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 9, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk2

t he da y, o rt o ha ve so m e o ne co m e and pi c k t he pur s e s up f r o m t he s c ho o l)

. The gi r l s v o l unt ar i l y w en t ho m e f o rt he da y r at he rt han c o m pl y w i t h t he de m and

. Pl ai nt i f fs t he n b r o ugh tthe i ns t anta c t i o n, s e e ki ng da m ag e s a nd p e r m ane nt inju n c tiv e re lie f o n g r o u n d s , in tera lia , t hatt he po l i c y and i t s e nf o r c e m e nt ab r i dg e s t he r i ghtt o f r e e s pe e c h a nd e xp r e s s i o n g u aran t e e d b y t he Fi r s ta nd F ou rt een t h A m en dm en t s of t h e U n i t ed S t ates C on st i t u t i on . Th e di st ri ctcourt gr ant e d s um m ar y j udg m e ntt o de fe nda nt s , b as e d p r i m ar i l y o n i t s c o nc l u si on t hatt he b an i s pe r m i s s ibl e und e rt he Supr e m e C o ur t ’ s dec i s i o n i n Ti n ker v. D es Moi n es Ind epend ent Com m u n i ty S chool D i st ri ct , 3 93 U
. S. 5 03 ( 19 69 )

. Fo rt he
r e a s o n s s e t fo r th b e lo w , w e a ffir m . I . B A CK GRO UND T h e sc h ool di st ri ct ’ s dress code st ates t h at “ t h ere w i l lbe no tol eran ce f or c l oth i ng orac c es so r i es t hat ha[ve] i nappro pri at e s ym bol i sm , es pec i al l y t hat
w h ic h d is c r im in a te s a g a in s t o th e rs tu d e n ts b a s e d o n ra c e , re lig io n , o rs e x .” S u pp l em en t i n g t h i s di st ri ct
- w i de p ol i cy, B u rl eson H i gh Sch oo l (“ B H S ” ) ha s a p o lic y , e n a c te d d u r in gth e 2 0 0 2 -2 0 0 3 a c a d e m ic y e a r , th a t p r o h ib its th e v is ib le di spl ay of

t h e C on federate f

l ag on t h e s ch ool ’ s c am pu s. Th i s pol i cy f ol l ow ed raci alst ri fe am on g st u den t s atthe school , som e of w h i ch centered on st u den t s’ d is p la yo f th e C o n fe d e r a te fla g . A t th e b e g in n in go f th e s p r in gs e m e s te rin J a n u a r y2 0 0 6 , p la in tiffs A .M
. a n d A

. T
. cam e t o sch oo l ca rry i n g pu rses b ea ri n g l a rg e im a ge s of t h e C on fede ra te batt l e f l ag. Th at s am e day , a teacher ref erred the gi rl s to the ad m i n i st rat i on f or di sc i pl i ne purs uant t o t he pol i c y agai nst vi sibl e di spl ays of t he C onfede r at e f l ag. A dm i ni st ra tors, t r eat i ng t he purs es l i ke any o t herdr es s c ode vi ol at i on, gave A

. M
. an d A

. T
. t h e opti on s of l eaving thei r purses i n t h e f ront of f i ce un t i lsc h ool l e to uto rh av i ng s o m e o ne c o m e t o t he s c ho o lt o r e t r i e ve t he pur s e s . Cho o s i ng ne i t he ro pt i o n, t he g i r l s c ho s e t o go ho m e f o r t he r e m ai nde ro f

t he da y. A. M
. a nd A

. T
. w ere not susp en ded , an d of f i ci al s t ook n o ot h er di sci pl i n ary act i on against th e m .3

The gi r l s s ubs e que nt l y ap pe al e d t he po l i c y pr o h i bi t i n g di s pl ay s o f t he C on federate f

l ag usi n g t h e school di st ri ct ’ s i n t erna l ad m i n i st rat i ve procedu res. T h e f i r s ts t e p , r e fe r r e d t o a s a “ L e v e lI ” a p p e a l , wa s a n a p p e a lt o d e fe n d a n tB HS pr i nc i pa lPaulEl l i o t tCas h. Cas h e xp l ai ne d t he hi s t o r y o f t he pol i c y, not e d t he pa s t i nc i de nc e s o f r ac i al t e ns i o n and vi o l e nc e o n t he c am pus , de t ai l e d i nf ra , a nd concl u ded t h at “ t h e n u m ber of i n ci den t s w ou l d be h i gh er bu tf or t h e res t ri ct i on o n v is ib le d is p la y s o f th e C o n fe d e r a te fla g .” C a s h th e r e fo r e d e n ie d th e L e v e l I appeal

. A. M
. and A

. T. t hen purs ued a “ LevelI I ” appea l , w h i c h w as hear d by d is t r ic ts u p e r in t e n d e n tM a r k J a c k s o n . J a c k s o n a g r e e d w it h C a s h ’s determ i n ati on , reasoni n g t h at “ i f I d i d n oten f

orce t h e C on federate f l ag ba n , t h en t h e n u m be ra nd t yp e s o f c o nf r o nt at i o nali nc i de nt s o n c am pus w o ul d i nc r e as e dr am at i c al l y, r e s ul t i ng i n m a t e r i a li n t e r f e r e n c e a n ds u b s t a n t i a ld i s r upt i o n o f t he
e d u c a tio n a l e n v ir o n m e n t.” A c c o r d in g ly , J a c k s o n d e n ie d th e L e v e l II a p p e a l. C as h’ s af

f i da vi t and t he af

f i da vi t o f t he pr e c e di ng pr i nc i pa l , M ark C r u m m e l, d o c u m e n t t h e h is to r yo f r a c ia l te n s io n a n d h o s ti l i t y a t B H S

. T h is
e v i d e n c e i s l a r g e l yu n c o n t r o v e r t e d

. BHS h a s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 , 3 0 0 s t u d e n t s . At al lr e l e va ntt i m es, le s s t han s i xt y o f t ho s e s t ude nt s w e r e Af r i c an- Am e r i c an. Cas h r e vi e w e d t he s c ho o l ’ s di s c i pl i nar y reco r ds a nd a ve r r e d t hatdur i ng t he 200 2- 200 3 schoolyear, t h ere w ere 35 report ed in cid en ces of race- rel ated pro bl em s. The nextye ar br ought one r ef er r al bas ed on a st udent ’ s use of a r ac i al epi t h etagainsta n ot h er st u den t
. D u ri n g t h e 200 4- 200 5 schoolyear, t h ere w ere t e n r e fe r r a l s i n v o l v i n g r a c i a l i n c i d e n t s . On e o f t h e s e i n c i d e n t s i n v o l ve d a
s t ude ntw ho dr e w a Conf e de r at e f

l ag i n hi s no t e bo o k a c c o m pa ni e d b y t he st atem en t“ N o ni ggers; subj ectt o ha n gi n g. ” Fi nall y, dur i ng t he 200 5- 200 6 school year ( t h e year i n w h i ch A

. M
. an d A

. T
. broug h t theirpu rses ) , t h ere w ere s even
r ac e - r e l at e d r e fe r r al s . O n e i nvo l ve d a s t ude ntw ho dr e w a no o s e a nd m ad e c o m m e nt s abo utha ngi ng m i no r i t i e s . Cas h no t e d t hatt he s e num be r s l i ke l y do notr epr esentt he f

ul lex t entof

r ac e- r el at ed i nci dent s as m any i nvari abl y go unn ot i c ed byadm i ni st r at or s and unrepo r t ed by s t udent s. Forex am pl e, i tw asPlaintiffs have not offered evidence refutingth at these incidents occurred. R ath er, 1 theyaver o nlyth at theydid not know about the incidents, and have provided the affidavit of 4 a p p a r e n tly co m m o n to fin d ra c ia llyh o s tile g r a ffit i in th e re s tr o o m s , b u t t h is rarel y resul t ed i n d i sci pl i n ary ref erral s becau se the of fen di n g st u den tcou l d n ot be i d e nt i f

i e d

. Th i s r a c i a lh o s t i l i t yo c c a s i o na l l yr e s ul t e d i n physi c al
c onf r ont at i ons . D uri ng t he 2002- 2003 s c hoolye ar , t her e w as a f i ghti n t he l obby
a r e a o f t h e g y mn a s i u m p r i o rt o t h e s t a r to f a b a s k e t b a l lg a me b e t we e n B HS
s t ude nt s a nd s upp o r t e r s o f a pr e do m i nant l y Af r i c an- Am e r i c an hi gh s c ho o l

. The l ocalpol i ce w ere c al l ed an d “had t o assi sti n r est ori n g order. ” Th i s prom pted in c r e a s e d p o lic e p r e s e n c e a t fu tu r e a th le tic e v e n ts
. Al s o dur i ng t he 2 00 2- 20 03 s c ho o ly e ar , a B H S s t ude nt“ s ho ve d a C o n fe d e r a te F la gin th e fa c e o f s e v e r a l m e m b e r s ” o f a n o th e rh ig h s c h o o l’ s a llbl ac k g i r l s v o l l e yb al lt e am a s t he y w al ke d t hr o ugh t he BH S ha l l w ay s . Ac c o r di ng t o C rum m el , t h i s i n ci den t cau sed t en si on an d r equ i red C rum m el , w h o w as t h en t h e p r i n c i p a la tB HS , t o a p o l o g i z e o n b e h a l f o f t h e s c h o o l

. T h e r e a f t e r , B HS
s t u d e n t s a t t e m p t e d t o d i s p l a yt h e f l a ga ta t h l e t i c e v e n t s , p r o mp t i n gB HS
a d m in istr a tion a n d sta ff to “in te rv e n e .” T h e sa m e sc h o o l y e a r (20 0 2 -2 0 0 3 ), suppor t er s of

a pr edo m i nantl y Af r i c an- A m er i c an sc hooll ef tB H S duri ng a s p o r tin ge v e n t b e c a u s e a B H S s tu d e n t w a iv e d th e fla gfr o m h is p ic k -u p tr u c k in f ront of t h em . T h i s cau sed t h e st ate h i gh schoolathl et i cs govern i n g bod y t o vi ew t h e di spl ay of

t h e f l ag at B H S even ts a s a r a ci ali n sul tan d a m ean s of i nt i m i da t i o n, a nd l e d t o t he co ns i de r at i o n of s anc t i o ns a ga i ns tBH S b e c aus e t he sch oo lw a s “ i d en ti fi ed [ a s] h a vin g a rep u tati on . . . as b ein g o p en l y h ostil e to A fri ca n -A m erican s; i f n ot si m p l y ra ci st. ” T h a t yea r, som e w h i te B H S stu d en ts al s o w av e d a Conf

e de r at e f

l agi n t h e d i rect i o n o f a g r o up o f

fe l l o w Af

r i c anA m e rica n stu d e n ts a s th e y w a ited for th e b u s. A cc o rd in gto C ru m m e l, th e sta ff
v ie w e d th is “a s a n a tt e m p t t o in tim id a te o u rA fr ic a n -A m e r ic a n s tu d e n ts .” Fol l o w i ng t he s e i nc i de nt s , dur i ng t he 2 00 2- 20 03 s c ho o ly e ar , BH S i ns t i t ut e d t he ban on vi sibl e di spl ays of t he C onfede r at e f

l ag. 1a school security gu ard who stated that , althou ghh e h ad no personal knowledge of th e

volleyb allincident, th ere was norec oll ectio n of th e ev en ta m ong stu dents and faculty me mb er s. 5 D uri ng t he 2005- 2006 s c hoolye ar , adm i ni st r at or s f ound gr af

f i t ii n a bo ys
r e s t r o o m c o nt ai ni ng r ac i ale pi t he t s (w hi c h was a ppa r e nt l y c o m m o n)
accom pa n i ed by a draw i n g of t h e C on federate batt l e f l ag. O n M art i n L u t h er K in g , J r . D a y in 2 0 0 6 -- le s s th a n a m o n th a fte rA .M . a n d A .T . ca r r ie d th e ir p u r s e s t o s c h o o l- - a h o me ma d e Co n fe d e r a t e b a t t l e f l a gwa s r a i s e d o n t h e B HS fl a gp ole an d gra ff

i tirep rese n ti n g th e fl a g w a s d ra w n on the sidew a l k b elow

. In D ece m b er 2 0 0 6 , the fol l ow i n g aca d em i c ye a r, a w h i te B H S stu d en t attem p ted to
w r ap hi s be l t a round an A f r i c an- A m er i c an st udent ’ s nec k w hi l e us i ng r ac i al epi t h et s and t h reat en i n g t o ha n g h i m . Th at s choolyear a lso saw t h ree d is c ip lin a r yre fe r r a ls o f s tu d e n ts w h o u s e d ra c ia l e p ith e ts
. A. M
. ha s a ve r r e d t hatherpur s e di d notca us e a di s r upt i o n a nd t hats he h ad nev er heard of t h e 200 2 i n ci den tinvol vi n g t h e d i spl ay of the f l ag i n fr on tof
an o ppo s i ng t e am . A. M
. al s o s t at e s t hat s he has s e e n num e r o us vi o l at i o ns o f t he dr e s s c o de , i nc l udi ng s e xua l l y c r ude t
- s hi r t s , c l o t hi ng pr o m ot i n g dr ug and al c o ho lus e , an d c l o t hi ng i de nt i f i ab l e w i t h a pa r t i c ul are t hni c o rs o c i alg r o up ( e . g. , M e xi c an f

l agt
- s hi r t s , t
- s hi r t s w i t h M al c o l m X, o rr ai nbo w b e l t s ) t hats he
c l ai m s v i o l a t e s t h e d r e s s c o d e y e t d i d n o t r e s u l t i n d i s c i p l i n e a g a i ns t t he
s tu d e n ts
. A s to h e rp u r s e , A .M . a s s e r ts t h a t h e ra n c e s to r s fo u g h t in th e C iv il Wa ra n d t h a tt h e “ f l a gi s a v e n e r a t e d s y mb o lo f mya n c e s t r y , a s y mb o lo f my C hri st i an r el i gi ous fai t h, and a s ym b ol of t he Sout h, a s ym bolof A m er i c an h i story an d a p oli ti ca lsym b ol, to m e, of l i m i ted go ve rn m en t an d resistan ce to
u n c o n s tit u tio n a l a u th o r ity .” S h e fu r th e rcla im s th a t t h e r e h a s n o t b e e n a “s in g le f i gh trel ated t o t h e raci alabu se, ” an d st ates t h at “ [ m ] ore i m p o rta n tly non e of th i s stu ff

i s related to ou r p u rses or ev en to t h e C on fede ra te f l a g.” Li ke A

. M
. , A

. T. st at e s t hatshe i s “ ups e tt hat[ BH S] ha s t r i e d t o l i nk t he har m l e s s c ar r yi ng o f m y Conf

e de r at e pur s e w i t h r ac i ali nt i m i da t i o n a ndThe district court gr ant ed defendants’ motionto dismiss this cl aim pursuant to Rule 2 1 2 (b)( 6). Plaintiff

s do n otapp eal th at de ci sion . Although the district co urt granted summaryjudgment to defendants on this state- 3 lawclaim , pla intiff

s have notappe aledthisruling. 6 vi ol ati on of

t h e ri gh t s of

ot h er s t u den t s” a n d th a t t h e f l ag f or her r epresents a sym bolof

patri ot i sm , fai t h , an d fam i l y. A

. T
. ha s a lso n ot i ced a l ack of enf or c em entof

the dr es s c ode an d spec i f i c al l y m ent i ons di spl ays of t he M exi c an f l ag , t he Canad i an f

l ag , M al c o l m X, a m al e s t ude ntw ho w e ar s fe m al e m ak e up an d cl ot h i n g, an d sexu al l y of fen si ve t
- shi rt s. S h e cl ai m s sh e h ad no conn ect i on t o t h e Ma r t i n L u t h e r K i n g , J r . D a y i n c i d e n t a n d t h e g r a f f i t i i n t h e b a t h r o o m. A c c o r di ng t o he r , “ M any s t ude nt s s upp o r t m y r i ght t o c ar r y m y pur s e , even stu d en ts w h o d on ’ t care m u ch f or th e C on fede ra te f

l a g.” P l ai n t i f fs f i l ed the in sta n tact i on i n t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rtf or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ct of T exas on F ebru ary 9, 200 7. T h ei r am en d e d v e ri f i ed
c o m p la in t a s s e r ts fiv e cla im s u n d e rfe d e r a l a n d s ta te la w . U n d e r4 2 U .S .C . § 198 3, pl ai n t i f

fs al l ege: ( 1) t h at th e ban on C on federate s ym bol s as enf orced
a ga i n st pla i n ti ffs ab ri d ge d the i r ri gh ts u n d er th e F i rst an d F ou rteen th A m en dm en t s t o f

reedom of

speech an d exp ress i on ; ( 2) t h at t h e sc h ool ’ s dress code vi ol ates t h ei r due p roces s r i gh t s un der t h e F ou rt een t h A m en dm en tbecau se i ti s v ag ue a nd o ve r br o ad ; ( 3) t hatde fe nda nt s have de pr i ve d p l ai nt i f fs o f t he equal pro t ec t i on of t he l aw s guara nt ee d by t he Fourt ee nt h A m end m en t by enf or c i ng t he dr es s c ode agai nstt hem “ w hi l e a l l ow i ng others t udent s t o w ear at t i r e w i t h pol i t i c al l y, r ac i al l y and e t hni c al l y prov oc at i ve sy m bol s” ; an d ( 4) t hat pl ai nt i f fs ’a bi l i t y t o di s pl aypr i de i n t he i rhe r i t ag e i s a pr o t e c t e d r i ghtund e rt he N i nt h A m endm entand has bee n i nf r i nged by def

endant s’ac t i ons . U nderTexas 2 l aw, pl ai nt i f

fs a s s e r tt hatde fe nda nt s ha ve vi o l at e d t he f r e e sp e e c h pr o t e c t i o ns o f t he Te xa s Cons t i t ut i o n. Pl ai nt i f fs pr ay e d f

o r r e l i e f i n t he f

o r m o f a j udg m e nt 3 decl a ri ng def

endant s have v i ol at ed t hei rc ons t i t ut i onalr i ght s, an or dert hat t he i rs t ude ntr e c o r ds b e e xp ung e d, a n a w ar d o f da m ag e s a nd c o s t s , a nd t he7

i s s uanc e o f

ape r m ane nti nj u n ct i on prohibi t i n g defenda n t s f r o m f ur t he rv i o l at i ng th e s e rig h ts
. Ther e af t e r , pl ai nt i f

fs m o ve d f

o r a pr e l i m i nar y i nj unc t i o n pr o hibi t i ng t he
c o nt i n u ed en for c e m e nto f t he b an o n di s pl ay s o f t he Conf

e de r at e f

l aga tBH S. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td e n i e d t h e m o t i o n , c o n c l u d i n gt h a tp l a i n t i f fs fa i l e d t o s h o w a l i ke l i ho o d o f

s uc c e s s o n t he m e r i t s . Anal yz i ng de fe nda nt s ’a ct i on s u nde rt he
s t and ar d e s t ab l i s he d i n Ti n ker v. D es Moi n es Ind epend ent Com m u n i ty S ch o ol D i st ri ct , 3 9 3 U .S

. 5 0 3 (1 9 6 9 ), th e d is tr ic t c o u r t fo u n d th a t d e fe n d a n ts re a s o n a b ly
con cl u d ed tha t t h e p roh ib i ted sp ee ch (i

. e ., v isibl e d i sp l a ys of th e C on fede ra te bat t l e f l ag) w as i m pos ed t o pre vent an ant i c i pat ed subs t ant i al and m a teria l di srupti on of

t h e edu cat i on alpro ce ss a tB H S

. Sp eci f i cal l y, t h e di st ri ctcourt not ed t hat def

endant s c oul d r eac h th i s d ec i si on bas ed o n t he hi st or i c al at m os pher e o f

r ac i alhos t i l i t y atB H S as w el las t he pr obl em s c ause d by di s pl ay i ng t he Conf

e de r at e b at t l e f

l agi n t he pa s t
. Pl ai nt i f fs argu ed t hatt he Ti n kerstan d a rd w a s n ot m et be ca u se th ere i s n o ev i d en ce th a t t h e C on fede ra te b a tt le fla gits e lf c a u s e d d is r u p tio n s o f th e d e g r e e re q u i r e d to s h o w th a t t h e ir di s pl ayw ou l d ca us e di s r upt i o n. The di s t r i c tc o ur tf o und t hi s a r gum e nt unpe r s uas i ve , r e as o ni ng t hatt he pr i o ri nc i de nt s a nd t he f l ag’ s dua lm e ani ng
w ere s u f

f i ci en tt o m eett h e Ti n kers t and ar d. As t o pl ai nt i f fs ’due pr o c e s s a nd
e q u a l p r o te c tio n cla im s , th e d is tr ic t co u r t fo u n d th a t p la in tiffs w o u ld n o t b e a b le t o show t h at t h e pol i cy w as so va g u e a s to v i ol ate due p roces s and ot h erw i se f o und t hatt he s e c l ai m s s i m pl y r e i t e r at e d t he i rm e r i t l e ss F i rs tAm e ndm e nt
a r g u m e n ts
. D efen da n t s m oved f or sum m ary j u dg m en t on al l of pl ai n t i f fs’ cla im s. R el yi ng heavi l y o n t he r eas ons s t at ed i n i t s or derdenyi ng pr el i m i nary i nj unc t i veTh e district court’s order grantin g summaryj udgment also addressed evidentiary and 4 discovery -related motion s m ade byth e pl aintiffs (th e court deni ed th e motion s). Plaintiffs do n otc onte stth es e rulin g s o napp eal. 8 re li e f, th e d istr ict co u rt g ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t t o d e fen d a n ts. P la in tiffs 4 tim e lya p p e a le d

. I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW T h i s cou rt review s a d i stri ct co u rt’ s gra n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t de no vo , a p p ly in g th e s a m e s ta n d a r d a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Tu rner v. B aylorR i cha rdson Med. C t r. , 476 F
. 3d 337 , 343 ( 5th C i r. 200 7)

. A pa rt y i s en t i t l ed to s u m m ary j u dg m en tonl y i f

“ t h e pl ead i n gs, t h e di scovery an d di scl osure m ater i al s on f i l e, an d an y af

f i da vi t s s h ow t h at t h ere i s n o g e n u i n e i ssue as t o an y m ater i alfact
a nd t ha tt he m o v a nti s e nt i t l e d t o j ud g m e nta s a m a t t e ro f l a w. ” Fe d

. R. Ci v . P. 56 ( c )

. On a m o t i o n f

o rsum m ar y j udg m e nt , t he c o ur tm us tv i e w t he fac t s i n t he l i gh tm ostfavorab l e t o t h e non - m ovi n g pa rt y an d draw a l lreason able i n ferences in its fa v o r . Se e Ho c k m a n v . W e s t war d Co m m c ’

ns , LLC , 40 7 F
. 3 d 3 1 7 , 32 5 ( 5 th C i r. 20 04 )

. I n r e vi e w i ng t he e vi de nc e , t he c o ur t m us t t he r e f o r e “ r e f r ai n f rom
m a k i n g cre d ib i l i ty d eterm i n a ti on s or w eigh i n g th e ev i d en ce.” Tu rner , 476 F. 3d at343. I I I . D I S CU S S I ON A . Free Speec h and E xpre s s i on It i s ax i om a tic th a t st u d en ts do n ot “sh ed the i r con sti tu ti on a lri gh ts t o freed om or sp ee ch or ex p ress i on at th e sch oo l h ou se g a te. ” Ti nke r , 3 9 3 U
. S. at 5 0 4
. D e s p ite th is w e ll-e s ta b lis h e d p r in c ip le , sc h o o l o ffic ia ls n o n e th e le s s re ta in
som e “au th ority, co n s i sten t w i th f u n d a m en tal con sti tu ti on a lsafeg u a rd s, to p r e s c r ib e a n d con trol con d u ct i n the sch oo l s. ” I d. R ecognizi n g t h e t en si on be t w e e n t he s e i nt e r e s t s , t he Supr e m e Cour ti n Ti n kerh e ld th a t s c h o o l o ffic ia ls
m aypr o hibi ts t ude nts pe e c h a nd e xp r e s s i o n up o n s ho w i ng “ fac t s w hi c h m i ght
reasona bl y h ave l ed schoolau t h ori t i es t o f orecast[ t h at t h e proscr ibed speech
w ou l d cau se] substant ia l d isr u pti on of or m ater i ali n t erf

erence w i t h sc h ool9

a cti vit i es.” I

d. at 514
. Sch oolof f i ci al s “ m u stbe abl e t o show t h at [t h ei r]
ac t i o n[ s ] [ w e r e ] c aus e d b y s o m e t hi ng m o r e t han a m ere d es i r e t o a vo i d t he d is c o m fo r t a n du n p le a s a n t n e s s t h a ta l w a y s a c c o m p a n ya n u n p o p u la rv ie w p o in t.” I d. at508. Ti n keri nv o l v e d a g r o up o f s t ud e nt s who p l a nn e d t o we a ra r m b a nd s at
s c h o o l a s a m e a n s o f p r o te s tin gth e V ie tn a m W a r . L e a r n in go f th e p la n in ad van ce, t h e sc h ooldi st ri ctadop t ed a p ol i cy of susp en di n g st u den t s w h o, up on re q u e st o f ad m in istr a to rs , re fu se d to r e m o v e th e ir a rm b a n d s . T h e p la in tiff

s tu d e n ts w e r e s u s p e n d e d w h e n th e yw o r e th e ira r m b a n d s a n d re fu s e d to co m p ly
w i t h a re que s tt o re m o ve t he m . Appl yi ng t he a bo ve s t and ar d t o t he fac t s o f t he case, t h e Su prem e C ou rthel d that t h e sc h ooldi st ri ctfai l ed to m eeti t s burd en becau se “ t h e recor d fai l s t o yi el d evi den ce t h at t h e sc h oolau t h ori t i es had reason to an ti ci p a te tha t t h e w ea ri n g o f a r m b a n d s w ou l d su b stan ti a l l y in terfere w i th th e w ork of th e sch oo l or i m p i n ge u p on th e ri gh ts of oth er stu d en ts. ” I d. at509. Th e s c hooldi st r i c t of fer ed no e vi denc e t o pr ove t hat i t s pol i c y w as m ot i vat ed by
a d e sire to a voi d the t yp e of m ater i aldi srupti on t h at w ou l d su pp orta ban on speech: “ C l earl y t h e prohibi t i on of expressi on of

one part i cul ar opi n i on , at l east
w i t hout ev i denc e t hat i ti s nec es sa r y t o a voi d m at er i aland s ubst ant i al in te r fe r e n c e w ith s c h o o lw o r k o r d is c ip lin e , is n o t co n s tit u tio n a llyp e r m is s ib le .” I d. at510. Th i s c o u r th a s f

u r t h e re l a b o r a t e d o n Ti n ker ’ s m ater i aldi srupti on st andard. A l t hough sc hoolof f i c i al s m ay pro hi bi tspee c h bas ed o n a f or ec as tt hat t h e prohibi t ed speech w i l ll ead t o a m ater i al di srupti on , t h e proscr i pti on cann ot be b as e d o n the of

f i c i al s ’m e r e e xp e c t at i o n t hatt he s pe e c h wi l lc aus e s uc h a di s r upt i o n . O f

f i ci al s m us tb as e t he i rde c i s i o ns “ o n fac t , no ti nt ui t i o n, t hatt he expe c t ed di sr upt i on w oul d pr ob a bl y r es ul tf r om t he e xer c i se of

t he c ons t i t ut i onal ri gh tan d that f

oregoi n g such exerci se w ou l d ten d to m ak e t h e expected d i sru p ti on su b stan ti a l l y less pro bab l e or less sev ere . ” But t s v . D al l as I nde p. Sc h. D ist. , 4 3 6 F .2 d 7 2 8 , 7 3 1 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 1 ); s e e als o i d. at732 ( “ [ T] her e m ustbeThis conc essioncomports w ith oth er courts’views of the meanin gs associated with 5 th e C onfe de ratef

la g . See, e. g., Scott v. Sch. Bd. of Alac hua County , 32 4 F .3d 1 246 , 12 49 (11th C ir . 20 0 3) (ob se rvin gth at th e C onfe de ratef la gh a s m ultip le“ em otio n allych arged” me a nin g s, and is viewed bysome as asymbol of white supremacyan d raci sm, even if others vi ew it as asymb olof h erit a ge) ; United States v. Blan ding, 2 50 F.3 d 85 8, 8 61 (4thC ir. 2 001 ) (per curi am) (“Iti sth es i nc e r e lyh e l dvi e w o f m a nyAm e ric a n s , of

allr ac e s , th atth ec o nf e derat e flag is a symbol of racialseparation an d oppression . And, unfortun ately, as uncomfortab le as it is toadmit, th ere are stillthose today who affirm all egiance to the confe derat e flag pre cisely because, for them, the flag is identifie d w ith racialseparation. B ecau se th ere are citi zen s who not only continu e tohold separatist views, b ut who revere the confe d er ate flag pre cisely for its sym bo li s mo f

those views, itis not an irration al inferenc e th at onewho displays the conf ede rat e flag mayh arb orr aci al b ia s a gain stAfric a n -Ame rican s.”). 10 s o m e i nqui ry, a nd e s t ab l i s hm e nto f s ubs t ant i alfac t , t o b ut t r e s s t he d e te r m in a tio n .”); S h an l ey v . No rth ea st In d ep . S ch

. D ist. , 46 2 F
. 2 d 96 0 , 97 0 ( 5 th Ci r . 1 97 2) ( “ [ T] he b o ar d c anno tr e l y o n ip se d ixitt o de m ons t r ate t he ‘ m at er i al
a n d s u b s ta n tia l’in te r fe r e n c e w ith s c h o o l d is c ip lin e .”). W h ile s c h o o l o ffic ia ls
m u stof fer fact s t o sup port t h ei r prosc ri pti on of st u den ts p e e ch , t h i s i s n ota “dif fi cu l t bu rd en , ” S h an l ey , 4 6 2 F .2 d a t 9 7 0 , a n d “t h e ird e c is io n s w ill g o v e r n ” if th ey are “w i th i n th e ra n ge w h ere re a son a b l e m i n d s w i l ldif fer, ” B u tts , 436 F. 2d
a t 7 3 2
. A pp l yi n g t h e Ti n kers ta n d a r d t o t h e in s ta n t c a s e , d e fe n d a n ts re a s o n a b ly ant i c i pat ed t hat vi sibl e di spl ays of the C onfede r at e f

l ag w oul d c ause s ubst ant i al di srupti on of

or m ater i ali n t erf

erence w i t h sc h oolact i vi t i es. A s a n i ni t i alm att er, pl ai nt i f fs agr ee t hat s om e v i ew the C onfede r at e f l ag i n c er t ai n c i r c um st ance s as a sym bolof

rac i sm an d i nt ol er ance , reg ar dl es s of w hat eve rot herm eani ngs m ay be associ ated w i t h i t
. T h ere i s am pl e, un controver t ed evi den ce t h at el em en t s of 5 t he B H S st ude ntbo dyhave co nt i nual l y m ani fe s t e d r ac i alho s t i l i t y andt e ns i o n. Thi s t e n s i o n h a s b e c o m e e vi de nti n t he v ar i o us e ve nt s de s c r ibe d a bo ve , i nc l udi ng
r ac i al l y ho s t i l e gr af

f i t i andv and al i s m , m ul t i pl e di s c i pl i nar y r e fe r r al s i nvo l vi ng
r ac i ale pi t he t s , a nd a phy s i c alco nf r o nt at i o n be t w e e n whi t e BH S s t ude nt s a nd th e A fri ca n -A m e r ic a n stu d en ts of a n oth er h i gh sch oo l

. S om e of the se e ve n ts i n cl u d ed the u se o f th e C on fede ra te f l a g, inclu d i n g th e i n ci d en t in w h i ch a w h i te B H S s t u d e n tw a v e d t h e fl a gin th e d ir e c t io n o f a n o p p o s in gs c h o o l’sThe Ei ghth and Tenth Circuits haveal so co nclud edt ha t prohib itio ns o n the 6 Confe der ate f

lag didnot infringe on st uden ts ’ rights of fre e sp eec h and expr es sio n, although those cases involved phy sical altercations directly involving the Confederate fl ag , amo ngoth er eventsd em on stratin gr aci al h os tility
. See B.W. A. v. Farm ington R. -7 Sch. Di st. , 55 4 F .3d 7 34, 11 pre dom i nantl y Af

r i c an- A m er i c an voll eyba l lt eam . As r ec ent l y as s pri ng 2006, C onfede r at e f

l ags w er e f

l ow n ove r t he f

l agpol e o n M ar t i n L ut herK i ng Jr
. D ay a n d a w h i te stu d en t si m u l a ted the l yn ch i n g o f a n A fri ca n -A m erican stu d en t. E ven if these even t s d o n otri se to the l evelof a “s u bstanti aldi srupti on ” un der Ti n ker(t hus j ust i f

yi ng t he ban bas ed o n pastac t ualdi sru pt i on) , t hey s er ve as a fa c tu a l b a s i s fo ra d m in is tr a to r s ’fo r e c a s t t h a t d is r u p tio n s m ig h t o c c u rif
s t ude nt s w e r e a l l o w e d t o di s pl ayr ac i al l y c har ge d s ym bol s s uc h a s t he C o n fe d e r a te fla g . O t herci rcu i t s, appl yi ng Ti n ker , have hel d t hat adm i ni st r at or s m ay proh ibi tt h e di spl ay of t h e C on federate f

l ag i n l i gh t of raci al h ost i l i t y an d tensi on att he i rs c ho o l s . I n B arr v. L afon , 5 3 8 F .3 d 5 5 4 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), th e S ix th C ir c u it h eld th a t a p roh ib i ti on on cl oth i n g b ea ri n g th e C on fede ra te f l a g d i d n ot viol a te st u den t s’ri gh t s i n l i gh tof “ raci alt en si on s” am on g st u den t s, evi den ced by raci st gr af f i t i , g r af f i t i co nt ai ni ng ge ne r ala nd s pe c i f i c t hr e at s a ga i ns ts t ude nt s , a nd p h y s ic a l a lte r c a tio n s b e tw e e n w h ite a n d A fr ic a n -A m e r ic a n s tu d e n ts
. I d. at565. Si m i l ar l y, i n S

ypn i ew ski v. W

arren H i l ls R egi on al B oardof E d u cat i on , 307 F. 3d 243 ( 3d C i r. 200 2) , t h e T h i rd C i rcui t h el d t h at a pol i cy proh ibi t in g st u den t s’ po s s e s s i o n o f

t he Conf

e de r at e f

l agw as no tfac i al l y o ve r br o ad b e c aus e “ [ t ] he h i st ory of

raci aldi f

f i cul t i es [ at t h e sc h ool ] provi de a su bstan tia l b a si s f or l e gi t i m at e l y fe ar i ng di s r upt i o ns f r o m t he ki n d of

s pe e c h pr o hibi t e d b y t he p oli cy . ” I

d. at262. Thi s hi st or y, as i n t he i nst ant c as e, i ncl uded ov er tdi spl ays o f th e C o n fe d e r a te fla g . Se e i d. a t2 47

- 48
. And t he El e ve nt h Ci r c ui tuph e l d a proh ibi t i on on d i spl aying the C on federate f l ag beca u se th e re w as “ evi den ce of
ra ci a lten sion s ex i sti n g a t t h e s ch oo l , ” as w ellas “testi m on y re ga rd i n g fi gh ts
w h i ch a p p ea red to b e raciall y ba sed

. ” Sc o t tv. S c h. B d. of Al ac hua Co u n ty , 324 F .3d 1 2 4 6 , 1 2 4 9 (11 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). 67 3 9( 8 thC ir

. 2 0 0 9); Wes t v. De rby Unifi ed Sch. Di st. No. 2 60, 20 6 F .3d 1 358 , 13 26, 136 6 (1 0th

C ir

. 2 0 0 0). 12 P l ai n t i f fs non et h el ess argu e t h at defen da n t s m u stdo m ore t h an of fer evi den ce t h at r aci alt en si on exi st s att h e sc h ool

. R ather, t h ey contend t h ere
m u stbe a di rectconn ection betw een t h e prohibi t ed speech an d an t i ci pa t ed di srupti on , show n by evi den ce th a t t h e C on federate f l ag h as act u al l y cau sed di s r upt i o ns i n t he pa s t
. Pl ai nt i f fs ar e o nl y pa r t i al l y c o r r e c t , i nsofar as Ti n ker does requ i re a c on n ect i on betw een t h e proscr ibed speech an d the exp ect ed di s r upt i o n. W i t ho ut t hi s c o nne c t i o n, t he r e w o ul d be no j us t i f i c at i o n for p r o h ib itin gth e o th e r w is e p r o te c te d s p e e c h

. S ee Ti n ker , 393 U
. S. at508. Ho we v e r , p l ai nt i f

fs r e ad Ti n kert o o n a r r o w l y , e ffe c tiv e lyre q u ir in gs c h o o l o ffic ia ls to w a i t f

or th e sp ee ch to cau se d i sru p ti on be fore a cti n g. T h i s d i re c tly contradi ct s Ti n ker ’ s hol di n g t h at ad m i n i st rat ors m ay p rosc ribe speech i f t h ere are fact s “ w h i ch m i gh treasonab l y h ave l ed schoolau t h ori t i es t o f orec ast
su b stan ti a ldisru p ti on of or m a terialin terferen ce w i th sch oo lactivi ti es.” S ee i d.
a t 5 1 3 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ); seealso S h an l ey , 4 62 F
. 2d a t970 ( “ Iti s not n ecess ary th a t t h e s c h o o l a d m in is tr a tio n s ta ya re a s o n a b l e e x e r c is e o f r e s tr a in t ‘u n til di sr upt i on ac t ual l y oc c ur[ s]
. ’ ” ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal) ( quot i ng B u tts , 436 F. 2d at 7 3 1 ))

. H ere , the r ac i a l l y in fl a m m a tory m ea n i n g a sso ci a ted w i th the C on fede ra te fl a g a n d th e ev i d en ce of racial t en sion at B H S esta b l i sh tha t de fen d a n ts
r eas onabl y f

or ec as tt hat t he pr os c r ibed s pee c h m i ghtc ause s ubst ant i al di srupti on of

sc h oolact i vi t i es. T h e Sixt h an d T en t h C i rcui t s hav e expressl y rej ect ed the n arrow in te rp re ta tion of Ti n kert h at pl ai n t i ffs a d v a n ce here. Th e Sixt h C i rcui tnoted t hatt he pl ai nt i f

fs ’i nt e r pr e t at i o n “ w o ul d pl ac e ‘ s c ho o lof f i c i al s . . . b e t w e e n t he proverbi alroc k an d a h ard p l ac e : ei t h er t h ey al l ow t h e di srupti on t o occ u r, or th ey are gu i l ty of a con sti tu ti on a lviol a ti on . ’ ” B arr , 538 F
. 3d at 565 ( al t erat i on i n o r i g i na l) ( q uo t i ng L ow ery v. E verhard , 4 9 7 F .3d 5 8 4 , 5 9 6 (6t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 )). B ecau se Ti nke rp e rm its schoolof f i ci al s t o actbased on t h e potenti alf orPlaintiffs argue we sho uld inste ad follow th e SixthC ircuit’s decision in Castorina ex 7 rel. Rewt v. Madiso n Cou nt y Schoo l Board , 2 4 6F .3 d 5 3 6( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 1 ).

13 d is r u p tio n , th e a p p r o p r ia te “in q u i r y , th e n , is w h e th e rth e s c h o o l re a s o n a b ly f or ec as tt ha t th e C onfede r at e f l ag w oul d c ause m at er i aland s ubst ant i al d i sru p ti on to sch oo l w o r k a n d sch oo ldisci p l i n e.” I d. W e a l s o a gr e e w i t h t he T en t h C i rcui t ’ s obser vati on t h at “ ‘ [ t ] h e factt h at a f u l l

- f l edg ed braw lh ad not yet br oken o ut ov ert he C onfede r at e f l ag do es notm ean t hat t he di st r i c tw as
r e q u ir e d to s it a n d w a it fo r o n e . In th is ca s e , th e d is tr ic t h a d a re a s o n a b le b a s is for f ore ca sti n g d i sru p ti on fr o m disp l a y o f su ch i tem s at sch oo l , an d i ts p roh ib i ti on w a s th ere fore p erm i ssible. ’ ” W est , 206 F. 3d at1366- 67 ( quot i ng W est
v . D er by Un ifi ed S ch

. D ist. , 2 3 F
. S u p p . 2 d 1 2 2 3 , 1 2 3 3 (D

. K a n . 1 9 9 8 )). 7 D espi t e t h ese deci si on s, pl ai n t i f fs argue that m ostcourt s hav e r equ i red
a d ir e c t c o n n ection be tw ee n the C on fede ra te f l a g a n d pa st disru p ti on s. In
s upp o r to f

t hi s a r gum e nt , t he y c i t e t o de c i s i o ns f i ndi ng t hatb ans o n t he Confe de r at e f

l agdo no tv i o l at e s t ude nt s ’Fi r s tAm e ndm e nt s r i ght s w he r e t he fla ga c tu a llyca u s e d p a s t d is r u p tio n s . S ee W est , 2 06 F. 3d a t1 36 2- 63 (upho l di ng a s c ho o lpo l i c y pr o hibi t i ng t he w e ar i ng o rpo s s e ssi o n o f i t e m s w i t h t he C on federate f

l ag becau se, i n add i t i on t o ot h er i n ci den t s of raci alt en si on , t h ere
w e r e “ s e ver alv e r ba lc o nf r o nt at i o ns ” b e t w e e n g r o ups o f s t ude nt s w e ar i ng C o n fe d e r a te fla g a n d M a lc o lm X t-s h ir ts ); Me l t o n v . You ng , 465 F. 2d 1332, 1333- 34 (6t h C i r. 197 2) (u ph ol di n g a schoolpol i cy prohibi t i n g C on fe d e ra te f l ags on ca m p u s fo ll o w in gco m m u n ity -w id e r a cia l dis tu rb a n ce s in v o lvin gth e fl a g); Ph i l l i ps v. An der s on County Sc h. D i s t
. Fi ve , 9 87 F
. Supp

. 4 8 8 , 4 9 2

- 9 3 ( D. S

. C. 19 97 ) (upho l di ng t he s us pe ns i o n o f a s t ude ntf

o rw e ar i ng a j ac ke tb e ar i ng t he C on federate f

l ag i n l i gh tof

pri o r i n ci den t s “ of

raci alt en si on di rect l y cau sed or
esca l a ted by the pr ese n ce of C on fede ra te F l a g cloth i n g, . . . a s w ellas in ci d en ts of raci al di spu t es” )

. C on t rary t o pl ai n t i f fs’ assert i on , h ow ever, t h ese cases do n ot
s t andf o rt he pr o po s i t i on tha t s c ho o l s m ayno tpr o hibi tt he di s pl ayo f t he C on federate f

l ag u n l ess i tha s act u al l y cau sed pa std isru p t i on s. R ather, t h ey14

ref l e ct th e p ri n ci pl e t h at adm i n i st rat ors w i l lusu al l y m eett h ei r burden un der Ti n kerb y s ho w i ng t hat t he pr o s c r ibe d s pe e c h has i n fac t be e n di s r upt i ve i n t he p a s t. S ee S h an l ey , 4 6 2 F .2 d a t 9 7 0 ; s e e also Ne w s o m v . Al be m ar l e County Sc h. Bd. , 35 4 F
. 3 d 24 9 , 25 9 n . 7 ( 4 th C i r. 20 0 3 ). B u t Ti nkerdo es n ot requir e a show i n g o f

pas tdi sr upt i on; adm i ni st r at or s c an al so m ee tt hei rbur den by
e s t ab l i s hi ng t hat t he y had a r e as o nab l e e xp e c t at i o n, gr o unde d i n fac t , t hatt he p r o s c r ib e d s p e e c h w o u ld p r o b a b lyre s u lt in d is r u p tio n . S ee B u tts , 436 F. 2d at 731 ; se e a lso D o n ing er v . Neih off , 5 2 7 F .3 d 4 1 , 5 1 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); Low e r y v . E u verard , 4 9 7 F .3 d 5 8 4 , 5 9 6 (6 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 ); L a V in e v . B la in e S ch

. D ist. , 257 F
. 3 d 98 1 , 98 7 ( 9 th C i r. 20 0 1 ). W h i l e iti s p oss ib l e for ad m in is tr a to r s to failto
m e e t th is b u r d e n in th e a b s e n c e o f p a s t d i s r u p t i o n s , seeCast ori n a v. Mad i son Coun ty S c h. Bd. , 2 46 F. 3d 5 36 , 5 43

- 44 ( 6t h Ci r . 2 00 1) , t he r ac i alt e ns i o n a nd ho s t i l i t y at t he s c ho o lj us t i f i e d d e fe nda nt s ’b an o n v i s ibl e di s pl ay s o f t he C on federate f

l ag i n t h i s c ase. A ccor di n gl y, w e hol d the di st ri ctcourtdi d n oterri n g ra n tin g sum m ary ju d g m e n t t o d e fe n d a n ts o n p la in tiffs ’fr e e s p e e c h a n d e x p r e s s io n cla im

. B . D u e P ro ce ss P l a i n ti ffs n ex t arg u e th a t t h e sch oo ldistri ct’ s d ress cod e, p a rti cu l a rl y it s u se of t h e t erm “ i n ap propri ate sym bol i sm , ” i s u n consti t u t i on al l y vag u e becau se s tu d e n ts d o n o t h a v e a d e q u a te n o t i c e o f w h a t c lo th in gis p r o h ib ite d

. W e di sagree.

“Al aw i s un consti t u t i on al l y vag u e i f i t( 1) fai l s t o provi de those t argeted by the st atute a reasona bl e opp ort u n i t y t o kn ow w h at c on du cti s prohi bi t ed, or (2 ) is s o in d e fin ite t h a t it a llo w s a r b itr a r ya n d d is c r im in a to r ye n fo r c e m e n t.” W o m en ’ s Med ica l C tr. of N.W
. Ho u sto n v. B ell , 2 48 F. 3d 4 11 , 4 21 ( 20 01 ) ( c i t i ng G rayn ed v. C i ty of

R ockf ord , 408 U
. S. 104, 108 -09 ( 1972) )

. St udent s m ay c h a l l e n g e s c h o o lp o l i c i e s b a s e d o n t h e i ra l l e g e d v a g u e n e s s , b u tt h e S u p r e me C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t t h e s ta n d a r d s fo rd e te r m in in gv a g u e n e s s a p p lyd iffe r e n tly i n the sch oo lcon tex t:15

W e ha ve r e c o gni z e d t hat‘ m ai nt ai ni ng s e c ur i t y ando r de ri n t he school s r equ i res a cert ai n degree of f l exi bi l i t y i n sc h ooldi sci pl i n ary pr o c e dur e s , a nd we hav e r e s pe c t e d t he v al ue o f pr e s e r vi ng t he in fo r m a li t yo f t h e s t u d e n t -t e a c h e rr e la t io n s h ip .’ G iv e n t h e s c h o o l’s n eed to be ab l e t o i m pose di sci pl i n ary san ct i on s f or a w i de ran ge of unan t i c i pa t e d c o nduc tdi s r upt i ve o f t he e duc at i o nalpr o c e ss, t he s c ho o ldi s c i pl i nar y r ul e s nee d no tb e a s de t ai l e d a s a c r i m i nalc o de w h ic h im p o s e s cr im in a l s a n c tio n s . B et h elS ch. D i st
. No. 403v. Fraser , 478 U
. S. 675, 686 ( 1986) ( quot i ng New Jersey v . T
. L
. O. , 4 6 9 U .S . 3 2 5 , 3 4 0 (1 9 8 5 )). The s t ude nti n Fraserw as gi ven t w o day s’s uspens i on f ordel i ver i ng a s e x u a llye x p lic it s p e e c h a t a s c h o o l a s s e m b ly

. I d. at 678

- 79. Th e sc h ool
m a in ta in e d a p o lic yp r o h ib itin g“ [c ]o n d u c t w h ic h m a te r ia llya n d s u b s ta n tia lly i n t erf eres w i t h t h e edu cat i on alprocess, ” w h i ch exp ress l y i n cl u ded “ obscene” spe ec h, and t eac her s had w ar ned t he s t udent pr i orto h i s s pee c h t hat i tw as

“ ‘ i n ap propri ate’” an d that he m i gh tface “ ‘ severe consequ en ces’” i f he d el i vered it. I d. at 67 8. The Supr e m e Cour t qui c kl y r ej e c t e d t he s t ude nt ’ s c l ai m t hatt he po l i c y w as unc o ns t i t ut i o nal l y va gue , f i ndi ng hi s ar gum e nt “ w ho l l y w i t ho ut
m erit. ” T h e C ou rt rea son ed tha t t h e p oli cyan d w a rn i n gs g a v e h i m ad eq u a te
n ot i ce t h at h e m i gh t be pu n i shed f or givi n g t h e speech, parti cul arl y gi ven sc h ool
o f f i c i al s ’ di s c r e t i o n t o de ve l o p s c ho o l po l i c i e s and t he fac t t h at t h e st ude nt
r e c e iv e d a re la tiv e lylig h t s a n c tio n . I d. a t 6 8 6
. T u rni n g t o t h e i n st an tcas e , de f e nda n t s c ou l d en actpol i ci es t h at perm i t t ed
e no ugh f

l e xibi l i t y t o de alw i t h “ a w i de r ang e o f unan t i c i pa t e d c o nduc t , ” a nd t he po l i c y ati s s ue her e w as notm o r e vag ue t han t he pr o hibi t i o n i n Fraseragainst

“ o bs c e ne ” s pe e c h. Pl ai nt i f fs he r e - - l i ke t he s t ude nti n Fraser- - w e r e g i ve n a
w ar ni ng t ha t t he p a r t i c ul a r s p e e c h a t i s s ue wou l d g i v e r i s e t o d i s c i p l i ne , vi a a pol i c y s pec i f

i c al l y pr ohibi t i ng vi sibl e di spl ays of t he C onfede r at e b at t l e f l ag. F i n a l l y , p l a i n t i f

fs w e r e n e v e r s u s p e n d e d ; t h e y o n l y v o l u n t a r i l y c h o s e t o g o h o me f or t h e day rath e r th an l eave thei r purses i n t h e sc h ool ’ s f ront of f i ce orha ve a pa r e ntr e t r i e ve t he m . J us ta s i n Fraser , t h i s l i g h t s a n ction m i l i t ates aga i n stPlaintiffs have also clai m edt ha tt he dress co de viol ates due process because it is 8 “overbroad,” presumablyreferrin g to the overbr eadthdoctrin e under the First Amendment a s incorp or ate d b yth e Fourt ee nthAme n dm ent Du e Pro ce ss C lau se . See Hersh v. Un ited States , 553F .3d 7 43, 762 (5th Cir. 200 8). However, pl aintiffs h ave faile d to offer anyar gu ment as to th e policy’sall egedoverb re a dthan d h ave th er ef or e waivedthisclai m. See Un ited Statesv . Miranda , 2 4 8F .3 d 4 3 4 , 4 4 4( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). Wenote that pl aintiffs’ e qual protection clai m largelymirrors the ir clai m that 9 defen dant s haveimpermissibly bur dene d th eir rights to fre e spee ch and expres s ion. “Itis ge nerallyunne cessaryto analyze laws which bur den of th e exercise of First Amen dment rights by a clas s of pe rs on s un de r th e equ al prot ectiongu arante e, b ec au seth e sub st a ntive gu arante esof th e Ame n dm ent se rve a s th e stro n ges t prot ectiona gain stth e li mitationof th es e rights. Laws whichcl assifyper sons in their exercise of these rights will have to meet strict test sf o rc o n s tituti o n alitywith o utn e e dtor e s o rttoth ee qu alp ro t e c ti o ncl au s e . S h o ul dthe laws survivesub stantivereview under the specific gu arantee s they are also likely to b e uphel d u n de r a ne qu al prot ectionan alysi s . . . . ” 4Rotu n da&Now ak, Trea t is e onC onst it u t io n al

Law: 16 t h ei r vagu en ess cl ai m . Th u s, t h e di st ri ctcourtproperl y gran t ed su m m ary j u d g me n tt o d e fe n d a n t s o n t h i s d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m. 8 C . E qual P r ot ec t i on P l ai n t i f fs argue that d efen da n t s viol ated theirri gh t s t o equ alprot ect i on bec ause t hey w er e di sc i p l i n ed undert he dr es s c ode f ort hei rC onfede r at e f l ag p u r s e s w h i l e o t h e r s t u d e n t s w h o w o r e c l o t h i n g w i t h “ i n a p p r o p r i a t e s y mb o l i s m”
w e r e n o t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d s u m m a r yju d g m e n t t o d e fe n d a n ts o n th is cl ai m becau se t h ey h ave n otprovi ded e v id e n ce t h at t h e ban w as enfor ced
u n equ al l y an d becau se t h e prohibi t i on on the f l ag w as j u st i f

i ed u n der Tin ker

. U nde rt he e qua lpr o t e c t i o n cl aus e , s t r i c ts c r ut i ny ap pl i e s t o c l as s i f i c at i o ns t hati n f r i n g e o n a f

u n d a m e n t a lr i g h t( s u c h a s t h e r i g h tt o f r e e s p e e c h a nd
e x p r e s s io n ) o rin v o lv e a p r o te c te d cla s s ific a tio n . S ee Mass . B d. of R e t i r e m e ntv. Mu rg ia , 427 U
. S

. 307 , 312 & n. 4 ( 19 7 6 ) ( “ [ E ] qu alprot ect i on an al ysi s r equ i res st ri ctsc ruti n y of

a l egi sl ative cl assi f i cat ion o n l y w h en t h e cl assi f i cat i on i m p erm i ssibly i n terferes w i th th e ex ercise of a fun d a m en tal ri gh t or op era tes to t h e peculi ar di sadv an t age of a suspect cl ass, ” such a s al i en ag e , ra ce, or anc e s t r y)

. Fo rt h e r e as o ns s t at e d a bo ve , pl ai nt i f fs ha ve no ts ho w n t hatt he defenda n t s’pol i cy i n f ri n ged t h ei r f

u n da m en t alr i ght s , no rha ve pl ai n t i f fs al l eged t h at t h ey h ave been t reat ed d i f ferentl y based on a p rot ect ed cl assi f i cat i on .

9Su bstance and P roced ure§ 1 8 .4 0 , at 3 8 9( 4 the d. 2 0 0 8). 17 Thus , pl ai nt i f

fs ’r i ght s t o e qua lpr o t e c t i o n have be e n v i o l at e d o nl y i f t he p oli cyi s n o t “ration a l l y re l a ted to a l eg i ti m a te go ve rn m en t pu rp ose . ” S ee C ity
of D a lla s v . S ta ng lin , 4 9 0 U .S . 1 9 , 2 5 (1 9 8 9 ); Lyng v. I n t ’lUn i on , UAW, 4 85 U
. S. 36 0, 3 70 ( 19 88 )

. The dr e s s c o de a nd t he b an o n v i si bl e d i s pl ay s o f t he Confe de r at e f

l agund o ubt e dl y s at i s f y t he de fe r e nt i alr at i o nal

- ba s i s s t and ar d,

“ w hi c h i s t he m os tr el axed and t ol er ant f or m of j udi c i alsc r ut i ny und erthe E qual P rotection C l a u se.” S ta ng lin , 490 U
. S. at26. The Suprem e Courthas

“ repeatedl y em ph asi zed the need f or af f i rm i n g t h e com preh en si ve au t h ori t y of t he St a t e s a nd o f

s c ho o lo f

f i c i a l s , c o ns i s t e ntwi t h f un d a m e nt a lc o ns t i t ut i onal
sa fegu a rd s, to p resc rib e an d con trol con d u ct i n the sch oo l s. ” Ti n ker , 393 U
. S. at 50 7. Thus , t he r e i s a l e gi t i m at e g o ve r nm e nt ali nt e r e s ti n m ai nt ai ni ng di s c i pl i ne a n d o r d e rin th e p u b lic s c h o o ls

. C u n n i ngh am v. B eavers , 8 5 8 F
. 2 d 26 9 , 27 3 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ); I

ngr aha m v . Wr ight , 2 5 2 F .2 d 9 0 9 , 9 1 6 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 6 ) (e n b a n c ), aff’d , 430 U
. S. 651 ( 1977)

. B ec ause sc hool of f i c i al s r eas onabl y ant i c i pat ed t hat di spl ays of

t h e C on federate f

l ag w ou l d cau se s u bstanti aldi srupti on of or
m at er i ali nt er fer enc e w i t h sc hoolac t i vi t i es , w e con c l ude t he pol i c y w as
r at i o nal l y r e l at e d t o t he l e gi t i m at e i nt e r e s t i n m ai nt ai ni ng s c ho o l di s c i pl i ne a nd
o r de r . Acc o r di ngl y, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no te r ri n g r ant i ng s um m ar y j udg m e nt to d e fe n d a n ts o n th is cla im

. I V . C ONC L US I ON F or t h e reaso n s stat ed ab ove, w e A F F IR M t h e j u dg m en tof t h e di st ri ct
c o u r t.18

G A R W O O D , C i r c ui tJudge, c onc urr i ng. I c o nc ur , a nd a ppe nd t he s e r e m ar ks t o r e f l e c tm y u n derst and i ng o f t he
c o nt o ur s o f

o urho l di ngs he r e i n. As J u d g e De n n i s we l le x p l a i n s , t h e e v i d e n c e h e r e a d e q u a t e l ys h o ws suff i ci en t i n ci den t s of

act u aldi srupti on at B H S ari si n g f rom st u den tdi spl ay of th e C o n fe d e r a t e fl a g in th e co n te x t o f r a c ia l h o s tilit ya n d te n s io n th e r e . H is
o p in io n co r r e c tly n o te s th a t t h e ch a lle n g e d p o lic ie s fo llo w e d a n d w e r e in response to i n ci den t s of “ raci alst ri fe am on g st u den t s att h e sch o o l , som e of
w h i ch centered on st u den t s’di spl ay of t h e C on federate fla g ,” such as, f or exam pl e, w hen B H S s t udent s sho ved a C onfede r at e f l ag i n t he face of sev eral
m em bers of

an ot h er hi gh sc h ool ’ s al lbl ack gir l s’vol l eyba l lt eam as t h ey w al ked t h rough t h e B H S ha l l w ays. A ccor d i n gl y, t h ere i s no n eed to opi n e on w h et h er s o m e g e ne r al l y as s um e d r ac i al l y i nf l am m at o r y m e ani ng as s o c i at e d wi t h t he Confe de r at e f

l agt o ge t he rw i t h e vi de nc e of raci al t e ns i o n a tBH S w o ul d a l o ne s u ffic e to s u s ta in th e in s ta n t b a n o n s tu d e n ts w e a r in gth e fla g a t t h e s c h o o l. A ny suc h r um i nat i ons w oul d be es se nt i al l y d icta
. M oreover, t h ere i s no evi den ce of act u alor reasona bl y f oreseeabl e di srupti on f rom B H S st u den tw eari n g or d isp la yof ot h ersym b o ls on cl ot h i n g i den t i f i able w i t h an y pa rt i cul ar group or cau se. N or i s t h ere any evi den ce t h at th e sch ooladm i n i st rat ors act ed ou tof per so naldi sa gr ee m en tw i t h orhos t i l i t y t o t he i deas t hat t he C onfede r at e f l ag sym bol i zed t o them , or ot h erw i se f or r eason s ap art f

rom concern f

or t h e dan ger th a t s tu d en t display of th e fl a g a t sch oo l , i n the B H S con tex t, u n rea son a b ly
r i s ke d, a s t he e vi de nc e a de qua t e l y s ho w e d, pr o vo ki ng di s r upt i o n, i nc l udi ng ra ci a l p h ys i ca l con fron tati on s, th ere . I d o no t rea d th e opin i on as su b scribing to t he q ue s t i o nab l e i de a t hatg o ve r nm e nt ala c t o r s m ayr e s t r i c tdi s pl ayo f t he C onfede r at e f

l ag o n t he bas i s of

a gener alass um pt i on that“s om e” w ho di spl ay t hatf l ag“ m ay” ha r bo rr ac i alb i as o rb e l i e f i n r ac i als e pa r at i o n.