2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
6-5-2009 

# B u sch v . M arple N ewt own S ch
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2967

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" B us ch v . M arp le N ewt own S ch" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1106. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1106AM E NDE D P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 07- 2967

DONNA KAY B US CH , I N H ER I ND I VI DU AL C APA CI TY AND AS T HE P AR E NT AND NE XT F RI E ND OF WES L E Y B US CH , A M I NOR

v . M AR PLE NEW TOW N SCH OO L DI STRI CT; M ARP LE NEWTOW N SC HOO L DI S TRI CT

BO A RD O F D I RE CT O RS; RO BE RT M E S AR OS , S UP E RI NT E NDE NT OF T HE M AR PLE NEW TOW N SCH OO L DI STRI CT; T HOMAS CO OK, P RI NC I P AL OF CU L BE RT S ON E L E M E NT AR Y S CH OOL

D onna K ayB us ch,

A ppel l ant2 O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D

. C

. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 05- cv- 02094 ( D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R

. B ar cl aySur r i ck)

A r gued M ay5, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , B A R R Y a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges

.

( Fi l ed: J une 1, 2009)
J AS ON P

. GOS S E L I N, E S QUI RE ( AR GUE D) J

. F REE DLE Y HU NSI CKER, J R. , ES QUI RE J ARROD D. S HAW , ES QUI RE KATHERI NE L

. VI LL ANU EVA, ES QUI RE D rin k e r, B id d le & R e a th O n e L o g an S q u are 1 8 th a n d C h e rryS tre e ts Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19103 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ant
M AR K A. S E RE NI , E S QUI RE ( AR GUE D) D i O r i o & Ser eni 21 W es tFr ontSt r eet P. O

. B ox 17893 M edi a, Penns y l vani a 19063
EL LI S H. KATZ, ES QUI RE J ONA THAN P. RI BA, ES QUI RE S w e e t S tev e n s T u c k e r & K a tz 331 E as tB ut l erA venue P. O

. B ox 5069 N ew B r i t ai n, Penns y l vani a 18901 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ees DAV I D A. CORTM AN, ES QUI RE A l l i ance D efe ns e Fund 1000 H ur r i cane Shoal s R oad B ui l di ng D , Sui t e 600 L aw r ence vi l l e, G eor gi a 30043 A tto rn e yf

o r A m ici C u ria e -A p p e llan t, A l l i ance D efe ns e Fund and P e n n sy lv a n ia F a m ilyIn stitu te
J AM ES M

. BEC K, ES QUI RE DI ANE S

. DAN OFF , ES QUI RE Dec h e r tLLP C i r a C entr e, 18 Fl oor th 2929 A r ch St r eet Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19104 A t t orneyfor A m i cus C uri ae-A pp el l ees, T he A nt i

- D efa m at i on L eague4 M ARC D. S TE RN, ES QUI RE A m eri can Jew i sh C on gress 825 T hi r d A venue, Sui t e 1800 N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k 10022 A t t orneyfor A m i cus C uri ae-A pp el l ees, T he A m eri can Jew i sh C on gress J EF F REY I

. P ASE K, ES QUI RE C ozen & O ' C onnor 1900 M arketSt r eet , 3r d Fl oor Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19103 A t t orneyfor A m i cus C uri ae-A pp el l ees, T h e Je w ish S o cial P o li cyA cti o n N etw o rk
EDWA RD B. S CHW ARTZ , ES QUI RE D L A Pi per 5 0 0 8 t h S t r e e t , N

. W. W as hi ngt on, D

. C

. 20004 A t t orneyfor A m i cus C uri ae-A pp el l ees, A m e ric a n s U n ited f

o r S e p a ra tio n o f

C h u rc h a n d S tate
EM I LY J

. LE ADER, ES QUI RE Penns y l vani a School B oar ds A s s oci at i on 4 0 0 B en t C ree k B o u leva rd P. O

. B ox 2042 M echa ni cs bur g, Penns y l vani a 17055 A t t orneyfor A m i cus C uri ae-A pp el l ees, Penns y l vani a School B oar ds A s s oci at i on5 F RANCI S CO M

. NEGRON, J R. , ES QUI RE N at i onal School B oar ds A s s oci at i on 1680 D uke St r eet A l exandr i a, V i r gi ni a 22314 A t t orneyfor A m i ci C uri ae-A pp el l ees, N at i onal School B oar ds A s s oci at i on and Penns y l vani a School B oar ds A s s oci at i on

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge

. Pl ai n ti ffs, w ho ar e mot herand s on, br i ng fr ee s peec h, est abli shm ent, and equ al prot ect i on cl ai m s ag ai nstD efen dan t s, wh o a r e s c h o o l o f

f i c i a l s a n d t h e s c ho ol d i s t r i c t
. Th e s e c l a i ms stem fro m an elem en tarysch o o l’ s restri ctio n o f th e m o ther’s ef f o rtto rea d alou d fro m scripture to stud en ts i n h er so n ’s ki nder gar t en cl as s r oom as part of a curr i cul ar“s how and t el l ”- typ e a c tiv ity

. T h e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f De f e n d a n t s o n a l l c l a i ms . W e wi l l a f f i r m. IB e c a u s e D o n n a K ayB u sch b ri n g s claim s o n W esley ’s 1 b e h a lf , w e w ill re f

e r to h e r a s th e c e n tra l li tig a n t. B us ch t es t i fi ed thatan Evangel i cal C hr i s t i an i s “s om eone 2 w ho bel i eves . . . t he B i bl e i s the l i t er al w or d of G o d. ” H er h u sb an d d esc ri b ed an E v an g eli ca l as “o n e w h o b ri n g s G o d ’s w o rd to th e w o rl d .” 6 D o n n a K a y B u s c h is th e m o th e r o f W e s le yB u s c h , a 1 ki nder gar t en s tudentatC ul ber t s on E l ement arySchool of the M a rp l e Ne wt o wn S c h o o l Di s t r i c t , wh o wa s a g e f i v e a tt h e t i me t hi s m at t erar os e. B us ch des cr i bes her s el f as an Evangel ical C hri st i an, and W esl eysha re s h is m other ’s rel i gious bel i efs.

2 B usch and W esl ey rout i nelyread the B i ble t og et her atbreakfast a n d b e f o re g o in g to b e d , an d W e sle yo f ten c a rrie s th e B ib le w ith h i m. In O ctob er 2 0 0 4 , as a stud en t i n teac h er Ja im e R eil ly ’s kindergart en clas s, W esl eypart i ci pated i n a cu rr i cularu n it cal l ed “A l l A boutM e. ” The uni t w as par t of the s oci al s tudi es c u rric u lu m a n d w a s d e sig n e d to b e a “ so c ializ a tio n ” p ro g ra m in w h ich s tud en ts w o u ld “id en ti fyind ividu al i n terests a n d learn ab o u t othe rs” a n d w o u ld “id en ti fyso u rce s o f conf l ictw ith o thers a n d w a y s th a t c o n f

lic ts c a n b e re s o lv e d .” E ach s tudenti n R ei l l y ’ s cl as s w as fea tur ed dur i ng hi s or her ow n “A l l A bout M e” w eek, and dur i ng the des i gnat ed w eek, t he curr iculu m cal l ed fort he s tudent ’ s par t i ci pat i on i n thr ee w ay s. F ir st, ea ch stud en t w a s g iv en the o p p o rtu n ityto “s h areW esley ’s ba b y sitter, Ju d y H a rp e r, testi fied that W esley ’s 3 favo ri t e bo ok i n k i n d e rgar t en w as B r ow n B ear, B r ow n B ear . 7 i nform at i on aboutt hemsel ves [s i c] ” bybr i n g ing i n “a pos t er w ith p ictu res, draw ing s o r m ag az ine c u t ou ts of [h is or h er] fam i l y , ho bb i es or i nteres ts.” Se con d, t he stud ent w as al so perm i t t ed t o br i ng a s nack t o s har e as w el l as a s peci al t oyor s tuffe d ani m al t o i nt r oduce t o t he cl as s . T hi r d, R ei l l yinvi t ed p are n ts t o p arti cipa te i n the un it b yv isi ti n g the s ch o o l t o “sh are a t al ent , s hor t game, s m al l cr aft , ors t ory ” w i t h t he cl as s dur i ng t hei rchi l d’ s des i gnat ed w eek. A s one as pectof W es l ey ’ s par t i ci pat i on i n hi s “A l l A bout M e” w eek, he made a pos t erw it h h is m othert hati ncl uded p h o to g ra p h s o f

h im se lf w ith h is h a m ste r, h is b ro th e rs, h is par ent s , hi s bes tfr i end at t he t i m e, and a pi ctur e of a chur ch cut outfr om cons t ruct i on paper . B us ch t es t i fi ed thats he w r ot e w hat W es l ey ask ed hert o w r i t e underthe pi ctur e of the chur ch: “I l ove t o go t o t he H ous e of t he L or d” or “ I l i ke t o go t o chur ch” o r “so m ethin g li k e tha t. ” T h e p o ster w as d isplay ed in W esley ’s c las sro o m . A n d W e sle y , lik e o th e r stu d e n ts, h a d th e o p p o rtu n ity t o p r e s e n th i s p o s t e rt o t h e c l a s s a n d t a l k a b o u tth e v a r i o u s i t e ms o n it. O n O c to b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 4 , B u sc h w a s s c h e d u led to v isit W es l ey ’ s cl as s t o par t i ci pat e i n hi s “A l l A boutM e” w eek. She to ld W e sle yth a t R e ill yin v ited h e r to v isit cla s s a n d re a d h is f a v o rite b o o k . W h e n sh e a sk e d h im w h a t h e w o u ld lik e h e r to re a d , W e s le yre s p o n d e d , “ th e B ib le .” 3N ev erthe less, o n su m m aryjud g m en t, w e assu m e tha t W esley ’s favor i t e book w as t he B i bl e and thatthe B i bl e w as chos en acc or di ng t o hi s pr efe r ence . 8 T he ni g htbefor e hervi s i tt o W es l ey ’ s cl as s , B us ch, al one, w i t houtW es l ey , ponder ed w hatpas s age s he w oul d r ead fr om t he B i bl e. E ventual l y s he s el ect ed ver s es 1 thr ough 4 and ver s e 14 of Ps al m 118 fr om the K i ng J ames Bi bl e: 1 G i ve thanks unt o the Lord, forhe i s good; b ec au se h is m erc yen d u res f o rev er. 2 L etI s r ael n o w s ay , hi s m er cyendur es fo rev er. 3 L e t th e h o u se o f A a r o n n o w sa y , tha t h is m erc yen d u res f

o rev er. 4 L et them now t hat fea r t he L or d s ay , that h is m erc yen d u res f

o rev er. * * * 14 T he L or d i s m y s t r ength and m y s ong, and i s become m ys al vat i on. B us c h t e s t i f

i e d s h e c h o s e t h e s e v e r s e s b e c a u s e ( 1 ) s he and W es l ey fr equent l y r ead fr om t he B ook of Psa l m s ; ( 2) she t houghtt he chi l dr en w oul d l i ke Ps al m s beca us e t hey ar e s i m i l ar t o poetr y ; an d ( 3) s he des i r ed a r eadi ng t hatdi d notm ake re f e re n c e to Je su s, w h ich sh e w o rrie d m ig h t u p se t so m e p e o p le gi ven w hats he per cei ved i n t he past as host i l i t yi n t he s chool di s t r i ctt ow ar ds her C hr i s t i an bel i efs

. She al s o t es t i fi ed thats he i nt ended t o r ead the ver s es t o t he s tudent s w i t houtexpl anat i onRo b e r tM e s a r o s , Su p e r i n t e n d e n to f th e M a rp l e Ne wt o wn 4 S c h o o l D istric t, l a ter su p p o rte d P rin c ip a l C o o k ’s r e sp o n se to B us ch bas ed on the ca pt i ve natur e of the cl assroom audi ence , t he par entappea r i ng t o “t ak[e ] the pl ace of the t ea ch er” i n t he cl as s r oom , and the l i kel yper cept i on t hat t he s chool di s t r i ctw as advoca t i ng ors uppor t i ng w hat everw as goi ng t o be r ead. 9 a n d th a t, if a sk e d q u e stio n s ab o u t th e re a d in g , sh e w o u ld r es pond t hat“i t w as anci ent ps al m s and anc i entpoetr yand one o f W e s le y ’s f

a v o ri te th in g s to h e a r.” O n the m o rnin g sh e w as sup p o sed to re a d to W esley ’s cl as s , B us ch i nform ed R eil lyof herdeci s i on t o r ead f r om the B ible. R eil lysaid sh e w o u ld h av e to c h ec k w ith the s ch o o l’ s pr i nci pal , T hom as C ook, w ho then arr i ved and s poke t o B us ch i n the hal l w ay . H e to ld B usch reading t he B i ble t o the cl ass w oul d be “a gai ns tt he l aw . . . of s epar at i on of chur ch and s t at e” and as ked hert o r ead f r om ano ther b o ok. Pr i nci pal C ook tes tifie d h e d e ter m in e d it w a s im p ro p e r to re a d f ro m th e B ib le t o a cl as s of ki nder gar t en s tudent s bec au se h e bel i eved “ t he B ib le is h o ly sc ri p tu re . . . . [ I] t’ s th e w o rd o f G o d . A n d

. . . r eadi ng t hatt o ki nder gar t en s tudent s i s pr om ot i ng r el i gi on and i t ’ s pr os el yt izi n g forpr om ot i ng a s peci fi c r el i gi ous poi ntof vi ew . ” B us ch t es ti fied thats he r emem ber ed C ook us i ng t he

4 w or d “pr os el yt i zi ng” and t hat s he under s t ood hi m t o be s ay i ng it w a s a g a in s t th e la w f

o r h e r t o tr yto “ c o n v e rt s o u ls .” B us ch obj ect ed, t el l i ng C ook t hatherothers on, age s i x, had j us t fi ni s hed r eadi ng a book cal l ed G ersh o n ’s Mo n ster: A10 St or y f orthe Je w is h N

ew Y ear , w hi ch he had obt ai ned fr om t he s chool l i br ary . C ook r es ponded: “W el l , that ’ s cul tur al and y our s on chos e thatbook and thes e chi l dr en ar e notchoos i ng t o hear fr om t he B i bl e. . . . I can’ t l et y ou do i t
. ” R ei l l yoffe r ed B us ch anotherbook t o r ead, and t hey s et t l ed on a book a boutcount i ng. R ei l l yt es t i fi ed the hal l w ayconver s at i on w as i naudi bl e i n the cl as s r oom , s he neve rs poke w i t h W es l eyort he o t herchi l dr en a b o u t th e in c id e n t, an d sh e d id n o t n o tice a n yc h a n g e in W e s l e y’ s b e h a v i o ro rd e m e a n o rth a td a y. O th e r p a re n ts a lso p a rticip a te d in th e ir c h ild re n ’s “ A ll A bo ut M e” w eeks byreadi ng st ori es t o t he clas s, shari ng snacks, a n d d o in g c ra f

ts. A m o n g th e sto rie s re a d b yp a re n ts w e re : The G r i nch W

ho St ol e C hr is tm as , The Jol l y Roger , and G r een Eggs and H am . R ei l l yal s o keeps a l i br ary of books fr om w hi ch s he p eriod icall yrea d s to W esley ’s class. A m o n g tho se b o o k s are se v e ra l ab o u t h o lid a y s, in c lu d in g : B ear Stays U p f orC hr is tm as , Fr oggy’s B es tC hr is tm as , The W i ld C hr is tm as R ei ndeer , Ten Ti m i d G hos t

s on a C hr is tm as Night , C h ris tm a s T ro lls , T he B est E as t erEggs E ver , E as t erB unny’s O n His W ay , The Night B ef or e East er , H

oor ay f orH anukkah , T

h e Ma g ic D re id e ls , and The H anukkah Mi ce . A d d it ion all y , o n e p are n t, L ind a L ipsk i, v isi ted R e ill y ’s class t w i ce dur i ng t he y eart o gi ve pr es ent at i ons on H anukkah and Pas s over t hat w er e pl anned i n advanc e w i t h R ei l l y . D ur i ng H anukkah, L i ps ki br ought i n a menor ah and a dr ei del and r ead “a Bl ue’ s C l ues H anukkah s t ory . ” L at eri n the y ear , dur i ng t he Pas s overhol i day , L i ps ki “r ead The Mat z oh B a l lFai r

y t o theR ei l l yt es t ifi ed The Mat z oh B al lFai r

y is a b o u t a “ f

a m ily 5 [that ] eat s m at zoh bal l s [, ] and theyfl oatbec au se the mat zoh b a lls w e re lig h t a n d f

lu f f y .” 11 s tu d e n ts a n d th e n o f

f e re d th e m m a tz o h b a ll w ith c h ic k e n s o u p .” 5 R ei ll ys etup L i ps ki ’ s pr es ent at i on bydi s cus s i ng E as t erand Pas s over . She al s o di s cus s ed C hr i s t m as and K w anza a as partof t he w i nt erhol i dayuni ti n the s oci al s tudi es curr i cul um , and r eca l l ed a pi ctur e of a C hr i s t m as tr ee ha ngi ng i n t he cl as s r oom att he t i m e of t he H anukkah pr es ent at i on. R ei l l yexpl ai ned s he w as comfort abl e perm it t i ng t he hol i daym at er i al s and pr es ent at i ons beca us e ( 1) the hol i day s w er e partof the off i ci al so cial stu d ies cu rri cu lum , (2 ) th e m en o rah an d d reide l w ere s ym bol s us ed on ac t i vi t ys heet s i n t hatcurr i cul um , and ( 3) t hey ap p ea red co n sist en t w ith the M arp le N ew tow n S ch o o l D istri ct’s po l i cyon ho l i dayob servan ces. O n M ay3, 2005, B usch fi l ed thi s l aw s ui ton behal f of her s el f and W es l eyagai ns tthe M arpl e N ew t ow n School D i s t r i ct , t he M arp le N ew t ow n School D i s t r i ctB oar d, School D is t r i ctSuper i nt endentR ober tM es ar os , and School Pr i nci pal T hom as C ook, as s er t i n g si x cl ai m s : ( 1) vi ol at i on of the Fr ee Speech C l aus e of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on; ( 2) vi ol at i on of th e F r e e C o m m u n ica tio n C lau se o f th e P e n n sy lv a n ia C ons t i tut i on; ( 3) vi ol at i on of the E s t abl i s hm entC l aus e of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on; ( 4) vi ol at i on of the Establ i s hm ent C l aus e of the Penns y l vani a C ons t itut i on; ( 5) vi ol at i on of the E qual Pr ot ect i on C l aus e of t he U ni t ed S t at es C ons t i tut i on; andR e g a r d in g th e sta te s p e e c h c laim s, th e P e n n sy lv a n ia 6 S u p re m e C o u rt h a s id e n tifie d se v e ra l f a c to rs to g u id e a n a n al y sis o f w h e th e r d if

f e re n c e s e x ist b e tw e e n f e d e ra l an d sta te c o n s titu tio n a l p ro v is io n s . P a p ’s A .M. v . C ity o

f E rie , 812 A

. 2d 5 9 1 , 6 0 3 (P a . 2 0 0 2 ) ( ci t i ng C om m onw eal th v. E dm unds , 586 A

. 2d 887, 895 ( Pa. 1991) )

. Pl ai nt i ff ha s notaddr es s ed anyof t hes e f a c t o r s , a n d o u ro wn c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e m do e s n ot i ndi cat e the Penns y l vani a C ons t i tut i on di ffe r s fr om the fe der al c o n s t i tu t i o n i n th e a r e a o f s c h o o l s p e e c h

. T o th e c o n t r a r y, Penns y l vani a s t at e cour t s have f ol l ow ed fe der al cons t i tut i onal p rin c ip les w h e n c o n sid e rin g th e sp e e c h o f tea c h e rs in P e n n s y lv a n ia c la s s ro o m s , s ee Fi nk v. B d. of E duc. of

W ar r en C o u n ty S c h . D ist. , 4 4 2 A. 2 d 8 3 7 , 8 3 9

– 4 0 , 8 4 1

– 4 2 ( P a . Co mm w. C t. 1 9 8 2 ) (ho lding the s c h o o l did n o t violate the tea ch er’s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s by pr ohi bi t i ng the t eac herfr om r eadi ng the B i bl e i n cl as s ) , and as a mat t erof s t at e pol i cy— r el evantt o the P e n n sy lv a n ia c o n stitu tio n a l an a ly sis — th e P e n n sy lv a n ia l egi s l atur e has expr es s ed a pr efe r ence that r el i gi ous t ext s notbe i nt r oduced t o y oungers tudent s . 24 Pa. St at
. A n n . § 15- 1515 (W est 2 0 0 6 ). A cc o rdin g ly , w e b eli ev e the an aly sis of B u sch ’s f re e sp e e c h c laim s u n d e r th e U n ited S tate s C o n stitu tio n is di s pos i t i ve of her cl ai m s under t he Fr ee C om m uni cat i ons C l aus e, A r t i cl e I , § 7, of the Penns y l vani a C ons t i tut i on. Bu s c h ’ s s t a t e e s t a b l i s h me n t a n d e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a i ms ar e l i kew i s e di s pos ed of byt he r el evantpr ovi s i ons of the fe der al 12 ( 6) vi ol at i on of t he guar ant ee of equal r i ght s and the pr ohi bi t i on on di s cr i m i nat i on i n t he Penns y l vani a C ons t i tuti on. B us ch 6c o n s titu tio n . Spr i ngf i eld Sch. D is t
. v. D ep’ tof E duc. , 397 A

. 2d 1154, 1170 ( Pa. 1979) ( “[T]h e pr ovi s i ons of A r t i cl e I , Sect i on 3 of [the Pennsy lvani a] cons t i tut i on do notexce ed the li m it ati o n s in the firstam en d m en t’ s estab li sh m en t cl au se.”); H ar r is bur g Sch. D is t
. v. Zogby , 828 A

. 2d 1079, 1088 ( Pa. 2003) ( “[T] he m eani ng and purpos e of t he Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e of the U n it ed S tat es C o n sti tuti o n a n d the s tat e C o n sti tuti o n ’s p ro h ib iti o n a g a in st s p e c ial la w s a r e su f f icie n tlysim ilar to wa r r a n tl i k e t r e a t me n t , a n d

. . . c o n t e n t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g th e two pr ovi s i ons m aybe r evi ew ed sim ul t aneous l y . ” ( ci t at i ons o m itted)). T he D i s t r i ct C our t had j ur i s di ct i on under28 U

. S. C

. §§ 1331 7 a n d 1 3 4 3 . W e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 to r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s u m m ary judgment

. O ur r evi ew i s pl enary , and w e appl y t he same s t andar d as t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt
. P etr uz

z i ’s IGA Super m arket

s , I nc. v. D ar l i ng- D el

. C o. , 9 9 8 F

. 2 d 1 2 2 4 , 1 2 3 0 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ). S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t sh o u ld b e g ran ted “ if th e p lead ing s, the d isco v eryan d d iscl o su re m at er i al s on fi l e, and anyaff i davi t s s how thatther e i s no 13 s eeks a decl ar at or y j udgm ent , actual and nom i nal damages , and cost s and f

ees. Fol l ow i ng cross mot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent , t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed sum m aryj udgm enti n favorof the D efe ndant s and aga i ns tB us ch on al l cl ai m s . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. 7g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n y m a ter ial fa c t a n d th a t th e [ sc h o o l d istric t] i s e nt i t l e d t o j ud gmen ta s a mat t e rof l a w . ” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 6 (c ). “ In re v iew ing the D istri ct C o u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j udgm ent , w e vi ew t he fa ct s i n a l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he n o n m o v in g p a rt y :” in th is c a s e , th e p la in tif f s . C om bs v. H

om erC tr. Sc h . D ist. , 540 F. 3d 231, 2 3 5 n . 5 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( ci t at i on o m itte d ). 14 I I A T he el ement arys chool s ett i ng — and part i cul ar l yt he ki nder gar t en cl as s r oom — i s a uni que forum forp u rpo s es of cons i der i ng compet i ng Fi rst A m endmentand peda gogi cal i nt er es t s . U nl i ke parks , s t r eet s , and othertr adi t i onal publ i c for a, el ement ary school cl as s r oom s ar e notpl ace s forunl i m i t ed d e b a te o n is s u e s o f

p u b lic im p o rt a n c e . See H az elw ood Sch. D is t
. v. Kuhlm ei er , 484 U

. S. 260, 267 ( 1988)

. M os tof the t i m e, s chool cl as s r oom s ar e r es erved f o r tea chi ng s tudent s i n a s tru c tu re d e n v ir o n m e n t. W al z ex re l

. W

al z v. Egg H

ar borTw p. B d. of E duc. , 3 4 2 F .3 d 2 7 1 , 2 7 5

– 7 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). P u b lic s chool s m ayt ake on c har act er i s t i cs o f p u b l i c for a by

“ in t e n tio n a lly o p e n in g ” f a c iliti e s f

o r “ p u b lic d is c o u rs e .” H a ze lw o o d Sc h . D ist. , 484 U

. S. at267 ( quot i ng C or nel i us v. N A A C P LegalD ef

. and E duc. Fund, I

nc. , 473 U

. S

. 7 8 8 , 802 (1 9 8 5 )); id

. ( “ [ S ]c h o o l f a c ili ties m a yb e d e e m e d to b e p u b lic forum s onl y i f s chool author i t i es have ‘ bypol i cyorbypr act i ce’ opened thos e fa ci l i t i es ‘ fo r i ndi s cr i m i nat e us e byt he gene r al“[A ] ny anal y s i s of t he s tudent s ’ r i ght s t o expr es s i on on t he 8 one hand, and of s chool s ’ need t o contr ol behavi or and fost eran 15 publ i c, ’ o r b ys om e s egmentof the publ i c, s uch as s tudent or gani zat i ons . ” ( q u o t i ng P er r y Educ. A s s ’ n v. P er r y Local E d u ca tors’ A ss’n , 4 6 0 U .S . 3 7 , 4 7 (1 9 8 3 ), an d cit i ngP erry E d u c. A ss’n , 4 6 0 U .S . at 4 6 n .7 )); s ee als o G ood N ew s C l ub v. Mi l f o rdC ent
. Sch. , 533 U

. S. 98, 102, 106–07 ( 2001) ( openi ng sc h o o l f a c ili ties to c o m m u n ity g ro u p s a f ter sc h o o l h o u rs) ; C h ild E v a n g e lism Fe llo w sh ip o f N .J. In c . v . S ta

ffo rdT w p . Sc h . D ist. , 386 F. 3d 514, 524–26 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( openi ng s chool fac i l i t i es t o a “b road arr ayof co m m un ity g roups”). B ut i n clas sr oo m s, d u ri n g sch o o l ho u rs, w h en cu rri cu lar acti v it ies are s u p erv ised by t eac her s , t he nonpubl ic n at ur e of the s chool i s pr es erved. Speech oc curr i ng dur i ng t hes e act i vi t i es m ay be re gul at ed under s t andar ds di ffe r entfr om thos e thatw oul d appl yi n publ i c for a. In t he el em entary schoo l cl assr oo m , “t he ap propri at eness of s tudentexpr es s i on depends on s ever al fac t or s , i ncl udi ng the typ e o f sp ee ch , the ag e o f th e loc u tor an d au d ienc e, th e sc h o o l’ s contr ol overt he ac t i vi t yi n w hi ch the expr es s i on occur s , and w h e th e r th e sc h o o l so licits in d iv id u a l v iew s f ro m stu d e n ts dur i ng t he ac t i vi t y . ” W a lz , 3 4 2 F .3 d a t 2 7 8 ; s ee al s o i d. at275 (“In the e lem e n tarysch o o l set ti n g , ag e a n d co n text are k ey . ”). A s w e have expl ai ned, “the age of t he s tudent s b ea rs an i m por t anti nver s e r el at i ons hi p t o t he degr ee a nd ki nd of contr ol a s chool m ayexer ci s e: as a ge ner al m att er , the y oungerthe s tu d e n ts , th e m o re c o n tr o l a s c h o o l m a ye x e rc is e .” Id

. at276. 8env i ronm ent cond ucive t o learning on t he o t her, m ust nece s s ar i l yt ake i nt o acco untt he age and matur i t yof the s tudent

. ” W

alker -Serr an o by W

alkerv. L eon ard , 325 F. 3d 412, 416 ( 3d C i r . 2003)

. 16 “W h il e se co n d arysch o o l stu d en ts are m ature en o u g h an d are li k elyto u n d erstan d that a sc h o o l do es n o t end o rse o r sup p o rt speech t hat i tm erel yperm i t s on a n on dis cri m i natorybasi s, ki nder gar t ner s and fi r s tgr ader s ar e di ffe r ent
. ” Id

. at277 (i n terna l q u o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). F o r elem en tary s chool s tudent s , “the l i ne bet w een sc hool

- endor s ed s peec h and m er el yal l ow abl e s peec h i s bl urr ed, noton lyfort he y oung, i m pr es s i onabl e s tudent s butal s o fort hei rpar ent s w ho trus tt he s chool t o confi ne or gani zed a ct i vi t i es t o legit i m at e and pedagogi cal l y - bas ed goal s . ” I d. R estr i ct i ons on s peec h dur i ng a s chool ’ s or gani zed, curr i cul aract i vi t i es ar e w i t hi n the s chool ’ s l egi t i m at e ar ea of c o n tro l b e c a u se th e yh e lp c re a te th e stru c tu re d e n v iro n m e n t in w h ich th e sc h o o l im p a rts b a sic so c ial, b e h a v io ra l, an d a c a d e m ic le s s o n s . I

d. at 275–76. T he cur r i cul ar s t andar ds appl i ed dur i ng t hes e ac t i vi t i es , “es peci al l ythos e thatoccuri n ki nder gar t en and fi r s tgr ade, w hen chi l dr en ar e mosti m pr es s i onabl e, s houl d not be l i ght l yover tur ned. ” I d. a t 2 7 7 ; see a l

so H az elw ood Sch. D ist. , 48 4 U

. S

. at27 1 (“E du c a t ors ar e enti t l ed to exerci se g re a ter c o n tro l o v e r [ sc h o o l-sp o n so re d e x p re ss iv e a c tiv iti e s] to a ss u re th a t p a rticip a n ts le a r n w h a tev e r le ss o n s th e a c tiv ityis d e sig n e d to tea c h , tha t re a d e rs o r liste n e r s a re n o t ex p o se d to17 m a t e r i a l t h a tm a y b e i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o rth e i rl e v e l o f

m a tu r i t y, a n d th a t th e v iew s o f

th e in d iv id u a l sp e a k e r a re n o t er ro n e o u sly a ttr ib u te d to th e s c h o o l.” ). Som e cl as s r oom di s cus s i on of r el i gi on orr el i gi ous p ract i ces m aybe cons i s t entw i t h appr opr i at e curr i cul ar sta n d a rd s, b u t cla ss ro o m sp e e c h p ro m o tin g re lig io n o r sp e c if ic re lig io u s m e s s a g e s p re s e n ts s p e c ia l p ro b le m s f o r e d u c a to rs . See W a lz , 342 F. 3d at280 ( “[P] r os el yt i zi ng s peec h .

. . i f perm i t t ed, w oul d be atcr os s - purpos es w i t h [the s chool ’ s ] educa t i onal goal a n d c o u ld a p p e a r to b e a r th e sc h o o l’s s e a l o f a p p ro v a l.”); id

. at 278 ( “Fora s tudent in ‘sho w and t el l ’ t o pas s ar ound a C hr i s t m as or namentora dr ei del , and des cr i be w hatt he i t em m ea n s to h im , m ayw ell b e c o n sist en t w ith the a cti v ity ’s educa t ional goal s . . . . N evert hel es s , i n t he cont extof an o rg a n ize d c u r r ic u la ra c ti v it y, a n e le m e n ta r y s c h o o l m a y p r o p e rly r e s tr ict s tu d e n t sp e e c h p ro m o tin g a sp e c if ic m e ss a g e .”); c

f. E dw ards v. A gu i l l ard , 482 U

. S. 578, 584 ( 1987) ( “Fami l i es entrus tpubl i c s chool s w i t h t he ed u ca ti o n of thei rchi l dr en, but c o n d iti o n th e ir tru st o n th e u n d e rsta n d in g th a t th e c las sro o m w ill notp u rp o s e l yb e u s e d t o a d v a n c e r e l i g i o u s v i e ws th a tm ay confl i ctw i t h t he pr i vat e beli efs of t he s tudentand hi s orher fami l y . Student s i n s uch i ns t i tu ti o n s ar e i m pr es s i onabl e and th e ir a tt e n d a n c e is in v o lu n tar y .”). C o n sis ten t w ith its pedagogi cal goal s , educa t or s m ayappr opr i at e l yr es t r i ctform s of exp res si on i n elem entaryschoo l cl assr oo m s. W h e th e r a sc h o o l in v ites o r so licits s p e e c h f ro m stu d e n ts hel ps det erm ine w hethers tudents peec h i s cons i s t entw i t h t he18 s chool ’ s pedagogi cal goal s . B utthe fa ctthe s peec h w as i nvi t ed dur i ng a curr i cul aract i vi t ydoes notnece s s ar i l ypr eventt he s chool fr om l i m i t i ng t he s tudent ’ s r es pons e. T he s chool m ay pr oper l yr equi r e t hat t he sol i ci t ed spee ch re s pond t o the s ubj ect m a tte r a t h a n d

. See C. H

. ex rel

. Z. H

. v. O l i va , 226 F. 3d 198, 2 1 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (e n b a n c ) (A lit o , J ., d iss e n tin g ) (“ P u b lic s chool teac h ers ha ve the author i t yt o s peci fythe s ubj ect s that stu d e n ts m a y d is c u ss in c las s a n d th e su b jec ts o f a ss ig n m e n ts t hats tudent s ar e as ked t o compl et e. T hus , i f a s tudenti s as ked t o s ol ve a pr obl em i n m athemat i cs or t o w r i t e an es s ayon a gr eat A m er i can poe t , t he s tudent cl ear l y does nothave a r i ghtt o s peak orw r i t e aboutt he B i bl e i ns t ead. ” (c i t at i ons om i t t ed) )

. A nd t he s chool m ayr equi r e cl as s r oom r es pons es conform t o the mode of p r e s e n ta tio n re q u e s te d

. W a lz , 3 4 2 F. 3 d a t2 7 9

. Th a ti s , when in v itatio n s f

o r stu d e n t ex p re ss io n a re in ten d e d to e licit des cr i pt i ve r es pons es , t he s chool m ayl i m i tt he r espons es a c c o r d i n g l y. L ikew ise, w h en p are n ts pa rt ici p ate in a n elem en tary s c h o o l ’ s c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s , t h e s c h o o l ma yi mp o s e t h e s a me re q u ire m e n t — th a t th e yre f ra in f ro m p ro m o tin g sp e c if ic m essa g es in class. T h e sch o o l’ s p ed ag o g ical co n side rati o n s are pr es ent , and ar e perhaps hei ght ened, w hen a pa r ent is the sp e a k e r be c a u se p a re n ts, m u c h lik e tea c h e rs, are typ ica llyh e ld i n hi gh reg ar d and vi ew ed as author i t at i ve byy oung chi l dr en. B yi nvi t i ng par t i ci pat i on i n c u rr i c u l a ra c t i vi t i es , educa t or s do not cede contr ol overt he mess age and cont entof the s ubj ectm att er pr es ent ed i n t he cl as s r oom . W er e t eache rs o rs chool19 a d m in istra to rs re q u ire d to d o so , in d iv id u a l s tu d e n ts o r p a re n ts coul d us e the cl as s r oom t o pr om ot e anym es s age i n the gui s e of a p e d a g o g i c a l l y a p p r o v e d c u r r i c u l a ra c t i v i t y. E d u c a to rs s h o u ld b e f

re e to se e k a p p ro p ria te w a y s to in v o lv e p a re n ts in th e e d u c a tio n o f th e irc h ild re n . See B r i ef of N at ’ l Sch. B ds

. A s s ’ n and P a. Sch. B ds

. A s s ’ n as A m i ci C ur i ae S u p p o rtin g A p p e llee s a t 4 (re c o g n izin g “ th e n e e d to a v o id c re a tin g leg a l d isin c e n tiv e s f o r sc h o o ls to d o a ll th e yc a n to engage par ent s i n t hei rchi l dr en’ s educa t i o n s”)

. Y ett he val ue and frequen cyof t hese effo rt s co uld b e j eop ardi zed if parent s — o n c e in v ited in to th e c las sro o m to sh a re d e tails a b o u t th e ir f a m ilye x p e rie n c e a s p a rt o f “ sh o w a n d tell” a c tiv iti e s — c o u ld e x p re ss a n ym e ss a g e o f th e ir c h o o sin g so lo n g a s it re late d in s o m e w a yto th e irc h ild

. S e e id . (ex p lain in g th a t in a b il it yto e x e rc ise d isc re tio n w o u ld “ f o rc e sc h o o l d istric ts to re -e v a lu a te par entpar t i ci pat i on i n s chool pr oj ect s on t he basi s t hat t heycan i l l aff or d t he l os s of contr ol ov ert he curr i cul um , l egal c o m p lica tio n s, a n d p o ten tial liab ili ties ” ); id

. at 10 (“A m i ci s u b mi tt h a ta c t i v i t i e s wh i c h t a k e p l a c e d u r i n g i n s t ru c t i o n a l t i me i n publ i c s chool s m us t be subj ectt o s chool contr ol , and thatthe m er e i nvi t at i on t o par ent s t o hel p outw i t h cl as s r oom act i vi t i es orhom ew or k as s i gnm ent s cannotr es ul ti n cart e bl anche t o t eac h an y thing one pl eas es t o a capt i ve audi ence of publ i c s chool s tudent s . ”)

. I n t he el ement ary s chool s et t i ng, and part i cul ar l yat t he ki nder gar t en l evel , educa t or s w oul d fac e t he di l emm a of ei t her fore goi ng val uabl e curr i cul aract i vi t i es orfor egoi ng t he abil i t yt o contr ol t he pedag og i cal dir ect i on of thei r cl assr oo m s.20 B I n t hi s cas e, D onna B us ch s oughtt o r ead a l oud pas s ages fr om t he B i bl e t o s tudent s i n a ki nder gar t en cl as s r oom , w i t h t he tea c h e r p re se n t, a s p a rt o f a c u rric u lar e x e rc ise . In th is c o n tex t, the s chool w as conce r ned s he w oul d “pr om ot e a r el i gi ous m e s s a g e th ro u g h th e c h a n n e l o f a b e n ig n c la s s ro o m a c tiv ity.” W a lz , 342 F. 3d at280. B us ch cont ends the natur e of the “A l l A boutM e” exer ci s e al t er s t he cont ext of t he spee ch i n t w o w ay s . Fi r s t , s he conten d s t he ac t i vi t y ’ s focus on W es l eydur i ng hi s “A l l A bout M e ” w e e k p re v e n ted a n yp e rc e p tio n o f sc h o o l en d o rse m e n t. “Sho w an d tel l” ex erc ises — co m m o n p lace in elem ent arys chool cur r i c u l a — a r e v a l u a b l e p e d a g o g i c a l t o o l s f o rf u r t h e r i n g t he behavioral and s oci al devel opm entof chi l dr en. B utl i ke other curr i cul aract i vi t i es i n the ki nder gar t en cl as s r oom , “s how and t el l ” as s ign m ent s gener al l ypr es um e the s chool m ayl i m i tt he c o n te n t o f

th e p re s e n ta tio n s . C

f

. i d. at278 ( “[I ] n the cont extof an or gani zed c ur r i cul aract i vi t y , an el emen tarys chool m ay p rop erlyrestri ct stu d en t spe ec h p rom ot i ng a s peci fi c messag e.”). M or eover , unl i ke i n W

a lz , the sp e a k e r h e re w a s n o t a s tu d e n t. Th a ti twas a s tu d e n t ’ s p a r e n tf u r t h e rb l u r s “ t h e l i n e b e t w een s chool

- endor sed sp eec h and mer el yal l ow abl e s peec h. ” I d. at 277. Second, po inti ng t o ours t at ementi n W a lzthat “[i ] ndi vi dual stud en t exp ression that arti cu lat es a p art i cul arvi ew b u t th a t co m e s in re sp o n se to a c las s a ss ig n m e n t o r a c tiv ityA therdepos i t i on, B us ch t es t i fi ed t hat the school w oul d not 9 b e a b le to re stric t a p a re n t in W e sle y ’s c las s w h o , as p a rt o f h is orherchi l d’ s “A l l A boutM e” w eek, w i s hed t o rea d m at er i al a d v o c a tin g e x tre m e v io len c e a n d d isc rim in a tio n . W e th in k it i s fai rt o di s countt hes e s t at ement s , w h i ch w er e el i ci t ed by o p p o sin g c o u n se l’s p o in ted q u e stio n in g . W h e n p re se n ted w ith les s p ro v o c a tiv e h yp o th e tica l sc e n a rio s a t o ra l a rg u m e n t o n th is appea l , how ever , B us ch’ s att orney s i m i l ar l y as s ert ed t hatno l i ne dr aw i ng byt he s chool w oul d have been per m i s s i bl e so l ong as a par ent ’ s m es s age r el at ed t o hi s orherchi ld. T h e gi s tof B us ch’ s t es t i m onyand couns el ’ s ar gum enti s thatB us ch bel i eves s chool s m us t choos e betw een al l ow i ng al l invi t ed p a re n t s p e e c h o r a llo w in g n o n e a t a ll. 21 w o u ld ap p eart o be pr ot ect ed, ” id

. at279, B us ch cont ends her sp e e c h sh o u ld h a v e b e e n p e rm itt e d b e c a u se sh e in ten d e d to exp res s a sol i ci t ed vi ew on t he pert i nen t subject m at t er. T hat i s, t he s chool i nvi t ed her t o par t i ci pat e i n W es l ey ’ s “A l l A boutM e” w eek, w her e “a l l aboutW es l ey ” w as the s ubj ectm at t er , and s he i n t e n d e d t o p r e s e n t a v i e w p o i n ta b o u tW e s l e y. A c c o r d i n g l y, B us ch cont ends t hatonce s he w as i nvi t ed t o s peak, any r es t r ict ion on hers peec h w as i m perm i s s i bl e s o l ong as her s p e e c h w a s a b o u tW e s l e y. 9 T he s chool need not choos e, how ever , betw een s ol i ci t i ng i nform at ion a bouts tudent s as par tof curr i cul aract i vi t i es and o p e n in g th e c las sro o m to a n yc o n ten t th e sp e a k e r c h o o se s to di s s emi nat e. I n cr aft i ng a curr i cul um , s chool offi ci al s fac e the22 s ensi t i ve t as k of expos i ng chi l dr en t o di ver s e tr adi t i ons and cul tur al exp eri ence s w hi l e al s o r emai ni ng m i ndful of the exp ect at i on s and ri gh t s of t he ch i l dren an d thei r par ents
. P ri ncipal C oo k d i sal l ow ed a r e a di ng fr om ho l yscr i ptur e beca use h e b e l i e v e d i t p r o s e l yt i z e d a s p e c i f i c r e l i g i o u s p o i n to f

v i e w. As i n W a lz , t he sc h ool ’ s r eas ons — t o pr eventpr om ot i on of a r el i gi ous m es s age i n ki nder gar t en — w er e “de s i gned t o pr event

. . . s p e e c h th a t, if

p e rm itt e d , w o u ld b e a t cr o ss -p u rp o se s w ith its educa t i onal goal and coul d appeart o beart he s chool ’ s s eal of appr oval

. ” I

d. at280. B us ch al s o cont ends the s chool ’ s r e s tr i c t i on of hers peec h w as unr el at ed t o t he l egi t i m at e purpos e of a voi di ng pr om ot i on o f re lig io u s m e ss a g e s g e n e ra lly b u t w a s ins tea d m o tiv a ted b yits desi re t o censor her and W esl ey ’s part i cular rel i giou s b el i efs. T h a t is, th e s c h o o l w a s u n c o n c e r n e d w it h p r o s e lyt iz in g g e n e ra lly and onl yconce r ned w i t h her C hr i s t i an m es s ages . She bas es her c o n ten tio n o n a g e n e ra l a ss e rtio n th a t th e sc h o o l h a d p re v io u sly exh ibit ed ani m os i t yt ow ar d herfai t h w hi l e t ol er at i ng the p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f

p a r e n t s o f

o t h e rf a i t h s i n We s l e y ’ s c l a s s r o o m. Speci fi cal l y , s he poi nt s t o t he tw o pr es ent at i ons byL i nda Li ps ki on H anukkah and Pas s over . A s not ed, dur i ng H anukkah, L i ps ki br oughti n a menor ah and a dr ei del and r ead “ a B l ue’ s C l ues H anukkah s t or y . ” O n t he Pas s overhol iday , L i ps ki r ead The Matz oh B all

Fair y t o t he s tudent s and then off er ed them m at zohB usch als o ack no w led ged that W esl ey ’s t eache r keeps a 10 l i br a r y of bo ok s s he pe r i od i c a l l y r e a ds t o W e s l e y ’ s cl ass. Sever al of thes e books ar e abouthol i day s , i ncl udi ng B earStays U p f orC hr is tm as , Fr oggy’s B es tC hr is tm as , T h e W ild C hr is tm as R ei ndeer , Ten Ti m i d G hos t s on a C hr is tm as Night , C h ris tm a s T

ro lls , The B es tE as t erEggs E ver , E a s terB u n ny’s O n His W

ay , The NightB ef

or e East er , H

oor ay f orH a n u kkah , T h e M a g ic D re id e ls , and The H anukkah Mi ce . 23 bal l w i t h chi cken s oup. 10 B utt he unchal l enged r ecor d demonstr at es the s chool perm i t t ed W es l ey , i n t he cl as s r oom and as par tof hi s “A l l A bout M e” w ee k , to ex p ress his reli g iou s b eli ef s. T h ese b eli ef

s w ere fea tur ed on hi s “A l l A boutM e” pos t eras a depi ct i on of a c hur ch and a s t at ementexpr es s i ng that h e l i kes t o att end chur ch. W esl ey w as perm i t t ed, as other stud ents w ere, t o pres ent h is pos t ert o t he cl as s i n the m an n erhe des i r ed. A ccor di ngl y , t he sch o ol ’ s act i ons do notappea rt o have be en mot i vat ed by di s cr i m i nat i on agai ns t W es l ey ’ s r el i gi on. R ather , t he s chool i dent i fi ed a s i gni fi cant di ffe r ence betw een the i dent i fi cat i on of rel i gious bel i ef an d cert ai n h oli day -or i ented r el i gious m at eri al s, on t he one ha nd, and a pa r ent ’ s r eadi ng of hol y s cr i ptur e, on the ot herhand, w hi ch i tcons i der ed a f or m of pr os el yt i zi ng. I tm aybe r eas onabl y argued thata mot her ’ s r eadi ng of t he B i bl e t o a ki nder gar t en cl as s , es peci al l y s ubl i m e ver s es fr om t he B ook of P s al m s , s houl d be per m i t t ed. I n t hi s s ens e and f or m a n y , the c o n d u c t is b e n ig n a n d th e m e ss a g e in sp irin g . B u t a24 r ea d i ng fr om t he B i bl e orot herr el i gi ous t exti s m or e than a m es s age a nd unques t i onabl y convey s a s t r ong s ens e of s pi r i tual an d m o ral au th o ri ty
. In th is case , the a u d ienc e is i n v o lun tary a n d v e ryy o u n g . P a re n ts o f p u b lic sc h o o l k in d e rg a rte n stu d e n ts m ayreas onabl yexpec tthei rchi l dr en w i l l notbecome capt i ve aud i ences t o an adu l t ’s readi ng of rel i gious t exts
. T he d i l em m a here i s that our j uri spruden ce seeks to a f f irm th e rig h t o f

in d iv id u a ls to id e n tifya n d p ra c tice th e ir r el i gi on and att he s ame t i m e t o for es t al l t he es t abl i s hm entof r el i gi on. I n t hi s cas e, as i n m anyot her s , thes e fundam en ta l pr i nci pl es are in t ens i on w i t h one another

. O ft en a ve hi cl e of r el i gi ous pr act i ce, s peec h is somet i m es under t aken i n pr i vat e, so m e tim e s in a g ro u p , an d so m e tim e s, a s h e re , in a p u b lic s chool

. T he publ i c s chool s etti n g m ayi m pl i cat e the E sta b lish m e n t C lau se , es p e c ial ly w h e re p u b lic a u th o rity under t akes ori s r eas onabl yper cei ved t o have under t aken t o gi ve on e r el i gi ous bel i ef of fi ci al appr oval orappr oval overother r el i gi ous bel i efs

. A nd thi s t ensi o n is p art i cul ar l yvexi ng i n a publ i c s chool w her e att endanc e i s compul s oryand mora l and s oci al val ues ar e bei ng devel oped al ong w i t h bas i c learni ng s ki l l s . I n s eeki ng t o addr es s t hat t ens i on, el emen taryschool admi ni s t r at or s and t eac her s s hould b e g i ven l at i tude w i t hi n a ran g e o f re aso n ab lene ss related to p re s e rvin g the s ch o o l’ s e d u c a tio n a l g o a ls

. S e e H a ze lw o o d

Sc h . D ist. , 484 U

. S. at273; W a lz , 3 4 2 F

. 3 d at 27 7

– 7 8 , 2 8 0

– 8 1

. In th is case , the s ch o o l’ sB us ch ave r r ed addi t i onal claim s on equal pr ot ect i on 11 gr ounds

. She cont ends the s chool ’ s di s par at e tr eatm entof her and Li ps ki i nt er fer ed w i t h her and W es l ey ’ s fundament al r i ght to f re e sp e e c h . B e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th e sc h o o l’s a c tio n s d id no tun con st i tuti on al l ybu rden B usch or W esl ey ’s F i rs t A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts , r a tio n a l b a s is re v ie w is a p p ro p ri a te
. See Johns on v. R obis on , 415 U

. S

. 3 61, 375 n. 14 ( 1974) ( “U nques t i onabl y , t he fr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on i s a funda m ent al cons t i tut i onal r i ght

. H ow ever , s i nce w e h ol d .

. . t hatt he A ct d o e s n o t v i o l a t e a p p e l l e e ’ s r i g h t o f f r e e e x e r c i s e o f

r e l i g i o n , we h av e n o occa s i on t o appl yt o the cha l l enged c l as s i fi cat i on a st a n d a rd o f

sc ru tin ystric ter th a n th e tra d iti o n a l ra tio n a l-b a sis tes t.”); R ubi n v. C i t

y of Santa Moni ca , 3 0 8 F .3 d 1 0 0 8 , 1 0 1 9 (9 th C i r . 2002) ( “[R ]ati onal bas i s r evi ew i s appr opr i at e unl es s the r es t r i ct i on uncons t i tut i onal l y bur dens a fundam ent al r i ght , her e, t he r i ghtt o fr ee s peec h. B eca us e w e conc l ude thatt he r estr i ct i ons do notuncons t i tut i onal l ybur den R ubi n’ s r i ghtof fr ee speec h, w e fi nd thatnei t herdo theyvi ol at e hi s E qual Pr ot ect i on r i ght

. ”)

. A ccor di ngl y , beca us e the s chool ’ s act i on wa s i n f u r t h e r a n c e o f

a l e g i t i ma t e p e d a g o g i c a l o b j e c t i v e , we aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’s hol di ng t hatno equal pr ot ect i on vi ol at i on occurr ed. 25 act i ons w er e notunr eas onabl e. 11 III B us ch al s o chal l enges t he s chool ’ s act i ons on estab li sh m en t gro u n d s. U n d er Le mon v . Kur t z m an , 40 3 U. S.26 602 ( 19 7 1 ), governm entconductcompl i es w i t h t he E st abli shm ent C l aus e if i tm eet s three cri t eri a. F i rs t , i tm ust h a v e a s e c u la r p u rp o s e . I d. at 6 12. Second, i t s pr i m aryor pr i nci pal eff

ectcan ne it h er advanc e nori nhi bi tr el i gi on, m eani ng t hatr egar dl es s of i t s purpos e, the a ct i on cannot s ym b o lic a lly e n d o rs e o r d is a p p ro v e o f re lig io n . See i d. ; AC

LU v. B l ack H

ors e Pi ke Reg’ lB d. of

E duc. , 84 F. 3d 1471, 1485–86 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( en banc )

. T hi r d, t he governm entact i on cannot f o s te r a n e x c e s s iv e e n ta n g le m e n t w ith re lig io n . Lem on , 403 U .S . at 6 1 3 ; AC

LU, 84 F. 3d at1483. R ega r di ng t he fi r s tof thes e cr i t er i a, Pr i nci pal C ook prohibi t ed B usch’s r eading b ecause h e sai d itw ou l d b e “aga i nst th e law

. . . o f

se p a ra tio n o f c h u rc h a n d sta te.” C o m p ly in g w ith t he Est abl i s hm entC l aus e j ur i s prudence i s a s ecul arpurpos e. A nd gi ven the hi s t or y of E s t abl i s hm ent C l aus e vi ol at i ons w hen r el i giou s m es s ages have be en conve y ed ats chool

- s pons or ed a c tiv itie s , s ee, e. g. , Santa Fe I ndep. Sch. D is t
. v. D oe , 53 0 U. S. 2 9 0 ( 2 0 0 0 ) (f

o o tb a ll g a m e s); Lee v. W eis m an , 505 U

. S. 577 (1 9 9 2 ) (g ra d u a tio n c e re m o n y ), C o o k ’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t a bi bl i cal r eadi ng t o ki nder gar t en s tudent s dur i ng a curr i cu la r act i vi t ym i ght also vi ol at e the Est abl i s hm entC l aus e i s not unr eas onabl e. T h e lik e lih o o d o f

a n E sta b lish m e n t C lau se v io latio n is r el ev an t to t he s econd Lem on pr ong as w el l

. A n obj ect i ve ob s e r v e rwou l d r e c o g n i z e t h e c h a l l e n g e s e d u c a t o r s f a c e w hen c o n f ro n tin g p o te n ti al E stab li sh m e n t C la u s e v io la tio n s . See, e. g. , Sa n ta Fe In d e

p . Sc h . D ist. , 5 3 0 U

. S. at308 ( focus i ng the27 ana ly s i s on an obj ect i ve obs erverfami l i arw i t h the s i tuat i on co n f ro n ti n g the s ch o o l)

. P ri n cipa l C o o k ’s ef fo rt s w ere r eas onabl y o ri ent ed t ow ar d compl y i ng w i t h t he C ons t i tut i on, a n d a c c o rd in g ly , an o b se rv e r w o u ld n o t r e c o g n ize h is a c tio n s to be hos t i l e t ow ar d W es l eyand B us ch’ s fai t h. A n obj ect i ve obs erverw oul d al s o know of W es l ey ’ s ow n part i ci pat i on i n the

“ A ll A b o u t M e ” w e e k . T h e se e v e n ts d o n o t d e m o n stra te hos t i l i t yt o W es l ey ’ s i dent i fi cat i on w i t h hi s fai t h. Fi nal l y , B us ch s ugges t s the s chool ’ s poli cygoverni ng r el i gi ous cont enti n t he cl as s r oom r equi r es educa t or s t o m ake a d h o c ju d g m e n ts, c re a tin g a n e x c e ss iv e e n ta n g lem e n t w ith r el i gi on: “D efe ndant s do nothave a coher entpol i cygoverni ng par ent al part i ci pat i on i n cl as s r oom act i vi t i es orr el i gi ous expr es s i on. I ns t ead, j udgm ent s aboutw hati s perm i s s i bl e and wha ti s n o tp e r mi s s i b l e a r e ma d e o n an ad hoc b a sis , w ith D efe nd an ts s crut i ni zi ng t he s peec h ati s s ue and maki ng an uni nfo rm ed j udgm entcal l as t o w hetherthe s peec h i s t oo r el i gi ous . T h i s cr eat es exce s s i ve ent angl ementbetw een governm entand r el i gi on. ” B r . of A ppel l ant at 15. T he s chool di s t r i ct , how ever , has a pol i cyperm i t t i ng hol i day

- or i ent ed cont entand cul tur al t hemes butdi s al l ow i ng s peech t hat p ro m o tes re lig io n . T h e sc h o o l’s m o n ito rin g o f m a ter ials pr es ent ed i n el ement arycl as s r oom s forthe purpose of compl y i ng w i t h i t s pol i cyand the Est abl i s hm entC l aus e does not re n d e r th e g o v e rn m e n t’s a c tio n s e x c e ss iv e lye n tan g led w ith re lig io n . See Bow en v. Kendr i ck , 487 U

. S. 589, 615–17 ( 1988) (find ing the re v iew o f e d u ca ti o n al m aterial s to e n su re28 compl i ance w i t h s t atut oryand cons t i tut i onal r equi r ement s does n o t create a n ex ce ssive en tang lem en t w ith reli g ion ). A ccor di ngl y , the s chool ’ s act i ons do notvi ol ate the E s t a b l i s h m e n tC l a u s e b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e m o t i v a t e d b y a perm i s s i bl e purpose t o compl yw i t h t he Est abl i s hm entC l aus e; t heydo notevi dence hos t i l i t yt ow ar d W es l ey ’ s fai t h; and they ar e notexce s s i vel yent angl ed w i t h r el i gi on. I V For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm ent o f th e D istric t C o u rt.

B A R R Y , C ir c u it J u d g e , concur r i ng .

W e h a v e o b se rv e d th a t “a t a c e rta in p o in t, a sc h o o l ch ild i s so y ou ng t hat i tm i gh treas on ablybe presum ed” t hat the F i rs t A m en d m en t do es n o t pro tect th at ch il d ’s sp ee ch

. W alke rS erran o b yW alke r v. L eo n ard , 3 2 5 F .3 d 4 1 2 , 4 1 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). W e h a v e a lso o b se r v e d th a t “[ w ]h e re th a t p o in t f a lls is s u b je c t to re a s o n a b le d e b a te .” Id

. I tcannots er i ous l ybe a s ubj ectof r eas onabl e debat e that “that poi nt ” i s ki nder gar t en. I s ay t hi s not beca us e W es l ey , t hen age f i ve, coul d nei t herr ead norw ri te and notbeca us e I t ake iss u e w ith h is m o th e r’s c laim th a t th e B ib le is W e sle y ’s f a v o rite b o o k a n d n o t b e c a u se , at le a st in m yv iew , W e sle ya n d h is29 ki nder gar t en cl as s m at es w oul d have be en unabl e t o under s t and t he exc erpt s fr om Psa lm 1 18 t hathi s m others oughtt o r ead on hi s behal f, ex ce rpt s w hi ch t el l us w hatI s r ael and the H ous e of A ar on s ayabo utt he Lord’ s m er cyand not e the conc eptof s al vat i on, a conc eptI not e has been t he s ubj ect of di s cus s i on and debat e among bi bl i cal s chol ar s for centur i es . I s ay t h at “that p o int” is k ind erg arten b ec au se ch il d ren o f k ind erg arten ag e a re s i m pl yt oo y oung and the r es pons i bi l i t i es of thei rt eac her s t oo sp e c ial to e lev a te to a c o n s titu tio n a l d isp u te c o g n iza b le in fede r al cour tanydi s agr eementoverw hata chi l d can a nd cannot s ayand ca n and ca nnotdo and w hat a cl as s m at e ca n and ca nnot b e s u b je c te d to b yth a t c h ild o r h is o r h e r c h a m p io n . W e s e n d o u r l i t t l e s t o n e s o f f t o s c h o o l worr y i ng about th e m a n d h o p in g n o h a rm w ill c o m e to th e m , b u t co n f id e n t in t he k no w l edg e t hat theyw i l l be prot ect ed and guided and, y es, nur tur ed byt hei rt eac her s , w ho ar e ours urr ogat es w hi l e our chi l dr en ar e aw ay . A nd s o I w r i t e bec aus e I fi nd s om ethi ng u n se ttl in g a b o u t th is c a se a n d o th e r s lik e it w h ich , w h ile r ec o g n i zi ng t he cruci al i m por t ance of age i n det erm i ni ng t he e x ten t o f th e F irst A m e n d m e n t’s p ro tec tio n s, h a v e n o t – a t lea st, n o t y et – ca rve d o u t an ex ce p ti o n fo r th e li tt le on es b u t, rathe r, cont i nue t o s crut i ni ze a nd anal y ze purpor t ed vi ol at i ons of the Fi rst A m endmentr i ght s of chi l dr en att he pr e- K and k ind erg arten leve ls. I no n ethe less join C h ief Ju d g e S ciri ca ’s exce l l ent O pi ni on beca us e i tcorr ect l yappl i es 

### o ur p reced ent to the i ss ues before us. Perh ap s o ur next ca sewilltweak that p reced ent j u st slig htly

to acco mmo d ate my

co n cern s.I c o n c u r w ith th e m a jo r it y’s h o ld in g in P a rt III o f its 12 op i nion den y in g B usch rel i ef on her E st abli shm ent C l ause c laim . H o w e v e r , I d isa g re e w ith th e m a jo rity ’s im p lica tio n in t hatPar tt hatt he School D i s t r i ct ’ s des i r e t o avoi d an E s ta b lis h m e n t C la u s e v io la tio n w a s a v a lid c o n c e rn . See inf ra not e 5. 30 H A R D IM A N , C ir c u it J u d g e , dis s ent i ng i n par tand concur r i ng i n p art
. T h e S u p r e me Cou r th a s c o n s i s t e n t l yc o n s i d e r e d two i m por t antques t i ons i n Fr ee Spe ec h C l aus e ca s es i nvol vi ng p riv a te s p e e c h : (1 ) w h e th e r th e sta te’ s re g u lati o n o f sp e e c h is bas ed on s ubj ectm at t eror vi ew poi nt ; and ( 2) w hethert he s peec h bei ng r egul at ed t akes pl ace i n a publ i c forum , a l i m i t ed publ i c forum , ora nonpubl i c forum . T he maj or i t ydoes not di s cus s t he fi r s tques t i on. A s forthe s econd que s t i on, the m ajo ri t ysum m ari l ycon cl ud es that this cl assr oo m w as a n o n p u b lic f

o ru m . A f

ter d o in g so , the m a

jo rityre lies e x ten siv e ly on W al zv. Egg H

ar borTow ns hi

p B oar d of

E ducat i on , 342 F. 3d 271 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , i n concl udi ng thatthe School D i s t r i ct appr opr i at el y barr ed D onna B us ch fr om s peaki ng. B eca us e I do notbel i eve W

a lzcontr ol s t hi s appea l , I m us tr es pect ful l ydi s s ent f ro m th a t p o rtio n o f

th e m a jo rity ’s o p in io n th a t re late s to Bu s c h ’ s f

r e e s p e e c h c l a i m. 12

I.31 U nderthe Fi r s tA m endment , cont ent
- bas ed r egul at i ons o f s p e e c h a re p re s u m p tiv e ly in v a lid

. R

. A

. V

. v. C i t y of St

. P aul , 505 U

. S. 377, 382 ( 1992)

. T hi s pr es um pt i on cover s tw o t ypes o f c o n ten t-b a s e d re g u latio n s: (1 ) p ro h ib iti o n s o f p u b lic di s cus s i on of an e nt i r e t opi c ors ubj ectm at t er ; and ( 2) re s tr ic tio n s o n p a rt ic u la r v ie w p o in ts
. See Consol

. E dis on C o. of N

. Y

. , Inc

. v. P u b

. S erv . C o m m ’n , 4 4 7 U

. S

. 5 3 0 , 5 3 7 (19 8 0 ). A ccor di ngl y , a cont ent
- neutr al r egul at i on “ p l a c es no r es t r i ct i ons on . . . ei t hera part i cul arvi ew poi ntoranys ubj ectm at t ert hat m ay be di s cus s ed. ” Hi l lv. C ol or ado , 5 3 0 U

. S

. 7 0 3 , 7 2 3 (20 0 0 ). T he di s t i nct i on betw een s u bj ect
- m att erand vi ew poi nt d is c ri m in a tio n is n o t a b r i g h t o n e . C o gsw e ll v. C ity o f Se a ttl e , 347 F. 3d 809, 815 ( 9t h C i r . 2003)

. A s a gener al m att er, “t he F ir st A m e n d m e n t m e a n s th a t g o v e rn m e n t h a s n o p o w e r to r es t r i ctexpr es s i on beca us e of i t s m es s age, i t s i deas , i t s s ubj ect m at t er , ori t s cont ent
. ” P ol i ce D ep’ t of C hi

. v. Mos l ey , 40 8 U. S. 92 , 9 6 (1972)

. T her efor e, governm ent al act i on t hatr egul at es s peech o n t he bas i s of i t s s ubj ectm at t er“s l i p[s ] fr om t he neutr al i t yof t i m e, pl ace , and ci r cumst ance i nt o a conc ern about cont ent
. ” I

d. at99. I f the mar ketpl ace of i deas i s t o r emai n fr ee and open, governm ent s m us tnotbe al l ow ed t o cho os e “w hi ch i s s ues ar e w or t h di s cus s i ng ordebat i ng. ” C ons ol

. E dis on , 447 U .S . at 5 3 7 -3 8 ; Star t

z el lv. C i t y of P hi l a. , 533 F. 3d 183, 192- 93 ( 3d C i r . 2008)

. “To al l ow a g o v ernm entt he choi ce of perm i s s i bl e s ubj ect s forpub li c deba t e w oul d be t o al l ow that g o v e rn m e n t c o n tr o l o v e r t h e s e a rc h f o r p o litic a l tru th .” Metr om edi a , I

nc. v. C i t

y of San D i ego , 453 U

. S. 490, 51532 (1 9 8 1 ). B ycontr ast , vi ew poi ntdi s cr i m i nat i on occur s w hen the governm entt ar get s n o t j us ts ubj ectm at t er , butal s o par t i cul ar v ie w s ta k e n b ys p e a k e rs o n a s u b je c t. R osenb erger v. R ect or & V is i t ors of

the U ni v. of V a. , 5 1 5 U

. S

. 8 1 9 , 8 2 9 (19 9 5 ). V i ew poi ntdi s cr i m i nat i on is “an e gr egi ous form of cont ent d isc rim in a tio n ” a n d “ th e v io latio n o f th e F irst A m e n d m e n t is a ll t he more bl at ant
. ” I

d. “ T o e x c lu d e a g ro u p sim p ly b e c a u se it i s contr over s i al or di vi s i ve i s vi ew poi ntdi s cr i m i nat i on. A gr oup is co n tro v e rsia l o r div isiv e b e c a u se so m e tak e iss u e w it h its vi ew poi nt
. ” C hi ld E vangel is m Fel l ow s hi p of N

. J., I nc. v. S ta ffo rd T w p . Sc h . D ist. , 3 8 6 F

. 3 d 5 1 4 , 5 2 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 4 )

. As J us t i ce Bre nnan expl ai ned i n hi s di s s enti n P er r y Educat i on A ss’n v. P erry L o ca l E d u ca tors’ A ss’n , 4 6 0 U

. S

. 3 7 (19 8 3 ), “[v] i ew poi ntdi s cr i m i nat i on i s cens or s hi p i n i t s pur es tform and g o v e rn m e n t re g u latio n th a t d isc rim in a tes a m o n g v iew p o in ts t hr eat ens t he cont i nued vi t al i t yof ‘ fr ee s peec h. ’ ” I d. at62. T he Supr eme C ou rt has cons i s t ent l yhel d that d isc rim in a tio n b a se d o n th e re lig io u s c h a ra c ter o f sp e e c h is prop erlycl as s i fi ed as vi ew poi ntdi s cr i m i nat i on. I n L a m b ’s C hapel v. C ent erMor i ches U ni on Fr ee Sch o olD is tr i ct , 508 U

. S. 384 ( 1993) , t he C our thel d t hata s chool di s t r i ctcoul d not p e r m it sc h o o l p ro p e rtyto b e u se d f o r th e p re se n tatio n o f

a ll vi ew s aboutfami l y i s s ues and chi l d r ear i ng exce ptt hos e dea l i ng w ith th e s u b

je c t m a tte r f

ro m a re lig io u s p e rs p e c tiv e . I d. at393. Si m i l ar l y , i n R os enber

ger , the C o u r t h e ld u n c o n stitu tio n a l a u n iv e rsity ’s r e f

u s a l to f u n d a stu d e n t p u b lica tio n b e c a u se it33 addr es s ed i s s ues fr om a r el i gi ous per s pect i ve. 515 U

. S. at831. T h e C o u r te x p l a i n e d : “ R e l i g i o n m a y b e a v a s ta r e a o f i n q u i r y, b u t it a ls o p ro v id e s , a s it d id h e re , a s p e c if ic p re m is e , a per s pect i ve, a s t andpoi ntfr om w hi ch a va r i etyof s ubj ect s m ay be di s cus s ed and c ons i der ed. ” I d. Fi nal l y , i n G ood N

ew s C l ub v. Mi l f or d C entr alSchool , 533 U

. S. 98 ( 2001) , t he C our tfound vi ew poi ntdi s cr i m i nat i on w her e a publ i c s ch ool perm i t t ed nonr el i gi ous gr oups t o m eet on s chool pr oper t y aft er s chool but p ro h ib ite d a C h ri s tia n c lu b f ro m d o i n g s o . I

d. at107- 09. T he C o u rt h e ld th a t ex c lu sio n o f a re lig io u s g ro u p a m o u n ted to i m perm i s s i bl e vi ew poi nt di s cr i m i nat i on w her e t he gr oup s ought onl y“t o addr es s a s ubj ectotherw i s e perm i t t ed undert he [s chool d i s t r i c t ’ s p o l i c y ] , t h e t e a c hi ng o f mo r a l s a n d c h a r a c t e r , f r o m a r el i gi ous s t andpoi nt
. ” I d. a t 1 0 9 . T o g e th e r, Lam b’s C hapel , R os enb e r

g er , and G ood N

ew s C l ub s t and forthe pr opos i t i on t hat i f t h e g o v e r n me n tp e r mi t s the di s c us s i o n o f a t o p i c f

r o m a s ecul arper s pect i ve, “i tm aynots hutouts peec h thatdi s cus s es t hat s ame t opi c fr om a r el i gi ous per s pect i ve. ” Staf f ord , 386 F. 3d at528. C om par i ng t he fa ct s of W a lzand the pr es entcas e, I fi nd t heyfal l on o p pos i t e s i des of the s ubj ect
- m at t er/ vi ew poi nt di vi de. I n W

a lz , this C o u rtco n side red w h ethe r a sc h o o l’ s r efus al to al l ow a fi r s t
- gr ade s tudentt o di s t r i but e penc i l s that i ncl uded the phr as e “Jesu s [Loves] T he Li t t l e C hi l dr en” a nd candycane s w i t h at t ache d r el i gi ous s t or i es dur i ng a cl ass r oom hol i d ay par t yvi ol at ed the s tudent ’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . 342 F. 3d at274

. T he s chool m ai nt ai ned an unw r i t t en pol i cy34 fo rb i d d i n g r e l i g i o u s , a s wel l a s p o l i t i c a l a n d c o mmer ci al m e ss a g e s, b u t n o ted th a t r e lig io n m a yb e a c k n o w led g e d “ if pr es ent ed i n an obj ect i ve mannerand as a tr adi t i onal par tof the cul tur e and r el i gi ous her i t age of the part i cul arhol i day

. ” I d. at 273. A s t he di s t r i ctcour ti n W a lzdet erm i ned, t he r egul at i on at i s s ue w as vi ew poi ntneutr al , al t hough i tl i m i t ed s om e r el i gi ous s p e e c h

. W

al z v. Egg H

ar borTw p. B d. of E duc. , 187 F. Supp. 2d 232, 239- 40 ( D

. N

. J

. 2002)

. C i t i ng Lam b’s C hapel , t he s tudent ar gued thatbeca us e the r es t r i cti on addr es s ed r el i gi ous s peec h sp ec ifi ca ll y , itw as n o t view p o int ne u tr al. T h e d istri ct co u rt d isag ree d

. T h e c o u rtac k n o w ledg ed the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s w arni ng t hatdi s cr i m i nat i on agai ns t reli g i on i n gener al m ay c o n stitu te v iew p o in t d isc rim in a tio n b e c a u se it p re v e n ts d iscu ssion fro m a re li g iou s stan d p o int. H o w ev er, th e c o u rt found L a m b ’s C h a

p e l and i t s pr ogenyi nappl i cabl e bec aus e the s chool had not opened a forum forthe exc hange of vi ew s about a s u b je c t b yh o s tin g a h o l i d a y p a r ty. Id

. at239. R ather , t he s chool had o n lys ol i ci t ed gene r i c gi ft s devoi d of anym es s age and had notcr eat ed a f

orum t o pr om ot e any vi ew poi nt , r el i gi ous or s e c u la r. Id

. T her efor e, t he di s t r i ctcour tpr oper l yconcl uded th a t th e re g u la ti o n w a s v iew p o in t n e u tra l, ev e n if it d iscri m inated o n the b asis o f su b ject m att er. In contr as tt o t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s car eful anal y s i s of the di s t i nct i o n betw een s ubj ectm att erand vi ew poi ntdi s cr i m i nat i on i n W a lz , this C our tdecl i ned t o engage i n s uch an i nqui r yon appea l , concl udi ng t hat“i n the contex tof an or gani zed curr i cul aract i vi t y , an el ement arys chool m aypr operl yr es t r i ct35 s tudent s peec h pr om ot i ng a s peci fi c mess age. ” W a lz , 342 F. 3d at278. W i t houtdet erm i ni ng w hethert he di s cr i m i nat i on w as bas ed on s ubj ectm at t erorvi ew poi nt , w e h eld t hatt he s chool coul d bart he s tudentfr om “pr om o t[i ng] a r el i gi ous m es s age t hr ough t he cha nnel of a beni gn cl as s r oom act i vi t y . ” I d. at280. T he r egul at i on ati s s ue i n this a ppeal i s di ffe r entfr om t h a ti n W

a lz

. A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed, t hi s cas e i nvol ves v ie w p o in t d is c ri m in a tio n . B u sc h v . M a rp le N e w to w n Sc h . D ist. , N o . 0 5- C V

- 2094, 2007 W L 1589507, at*7 ( E

. D

. Pa. M ay31, 2007)

. T he t eac her ’ s des cr i pt i on of “A l l A boutM e” w eek l eft t he s ubj ect m at t er of the as s i gnm entopen- ended, s t at i ng: “Each chi l d w i l l have the oppor tuni t yt o s har e i nform at i on about th e m s e lv e s [ s ic ] d u ri n g th e i r ‘A ll A b o u t M e ’ w e e k .” Fur t herm ore, the des cr i pt i on encour aged di s cus s i on of the

“ c hil d’s fam i l y , ho bb i es, and i nter est s, ” and i nv i t ed parents to “come t o s chool t o s har e a t al en t, s hor tgame, s m al l cr aft , or story ” d u ri n g their c h il d ’s w ee k

. A cc o rdin g ly , D o n n a B u sch ’s at t empt t o r ead Ps al m 118 t o hers on’ s cl ass fe l l w i t hi n the sp ec ifi ed su b

ject m att er — i

. e. , s om ethi ng of i nt er es tt o hers on and i m por t antt o hi s fami l y— and the s ol e r eas on forexcl udi ng hers peec h w as it s r el i gi ous char act er . Psa l m 118 does not c o n ta in v u lg a r o r l e w d la n g u a g e , B et hel Sch. D is t
. N

o. 403 v. Fr as er , 478 U

. S. 675, 685 ( 1985) ( “The Fi r s tA m endmentdoes n o t p re v e n t th e sc h o o l o f f icia ls f ro m d e ter m in in g th a t to p e rm it a v u lgar a n d lew d sp ee ch

. . . w o u ld u n d erm in e th e sc h o o l’ s basi c edu cat i on al m i ssi on . ”), no r does i tprai se i l l egal act i vit i es, Mors e v. Fr eder i ck , 127 S. C t
. 2618, 2629 ( 200 7 ) (sc hool w asA s B us ch ar g u es, th at th is w as v iew p o int discrimi nat i on 13 i s m ad e m an i fes tbyt he fa ctthatr el i gi ous di s cus s i on had not b e e n f o re ig n to th is c las sro o m in th e p a st. A p a rt f ro m “ A ll A boutM e” w eek a ct i vi t i es , a di ffe r entpar enttw i ce w as i nvi t ed t o pr es ent t o t he cl as s about H anukkah and Pas s over . T her efor e, i n addit ion t o havi ng di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns tt he r el i gi ous per s pect i ve g e n e ra lly – in co n t r avent i on of Lam b’s C hapel , 36 j us t i fi ed i n r es t r i ct i ng s peec h thatcoul d be “r eas onabl yvi ew ed as pr om ot i ng i l l egal drug us e”) , and ther e i s no evi dence that B us ch’ s r eadi ng w oul d have c aus ed anys or tof cl as s r oom d i s ru p tio n , T

in ke r v . D e s Mo in e s In d e p . C m ty. S c h . D ist. , 393 U

. S

. 5 0 3 , 5 1 3 (19 6 9 ). I ns t ea d , t h e c h a l l e n g e d s p e e c h was r e s p o n s i v e t o t he as s i g n me n tb u ta p p r o a c h e d i tf r o m a r e l i g i o u s p e r s p e ct i ve beca us e r el i gi on i s m os t i m por t ant t o t he B us ch fami l y . A s t he Supr eme C our thas obs erved, par t i cul ar l yi n the cont extof re lig io u s e x p re ss io n , it c a n b e d if f icu lt t o d isc e rn w h a t am o u n ts t o a subjec t m a tterun t o it sel f, and w hat, bycon t ras t , i s best c h a ra c ter ize d a s a sta n d p o in t f ro m w h ic h a su b

jec t m a tter is a p p ro a c h e d

. S e e Ro s e n b e r ger , 5 1 5 U .S . a t 8 3 1 . H o w e v e r, I bel i eve the s chool w entt oo far in t hi s cas e i n l i m i t i ng par t i ci pat i on i n “A l l A boutM e” w eek t o nonr el i gi ous per s pect i ves . A s t he D i s t r i ctC ourtpr o p erly not ed, D onna B usch w as denied t he opp ortun i t y t o r ead the st oryher son ch ose beca us e i texpr es s ed a r el igi ous vi ew poi nt , r ather t han a s ecul ar o n e. T h is plainlyco n sti tuted v iew p o in t, n o t subject m att er, di s cr i m i nat i on. A s t hen- J udge A l i t o r ecogni zed i n hi s di s s ent 13R os enber ger , and Go o dNe ws – t he School D i s t r i ctm ayhave im p rop erlydi s cr i m i nat ed b e tw een r el i gi ous per s pect i ves . E i t her w ay , the School D i s t r i ctdoes notvi gor ous l ychal l enge the D i s t r i ctC ourt ’ s concl us i on t hat i t s r es t r i ct i on of B us ch’ s s peec h w as vi ew poi nt
- bas ed. 37 i n C

. H

. v. O l i va , 226 F. 3d 198 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( en banc ) , s uch vi ew poi nt di s cr i m i nat i on i s pr os cr i bed bythe Fi r s tA m endment u n less the S ch o o l D istri ct ca n sh o w that all o w ing B u sch ’s sp e e c h o n a n o n d isc rim in a to ryb a sis w o u ld h a v e “ m a ter ially di s ru p t [ e d ] c l a s s wor k o r i n v o l v e [ d ] s u b s t a n t i a l d i s o r d e r or i nvas i on of t he ri ght s of ot her [ ] [s tudent s ]

. ” I d. at 212 ( quot i ng Ti nker , 393 U

. S. at513)

. “W hen the gover n m en tm akes an a v e n ue of

c o mmu n i c a t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o th e p r o p o n e n t s o f s o me vi ew s , t he s ame opportuni t y m us t , abs ent ex cept i onal c irc u m sta n c e s, b e a f

f o rd e d to o th e rs w h o w ish to e x p re ss th e ir id e a s in th a t m a n n e r, w h e th e r o r n o t th e g o v e rn m e n tal o f f icia ls endor s e or sa nct i on t he t hought s t o be expr es s ed. ” M ai n R oad v. A ytch , 5 2 2 F

. 2 d 1 0 8 0 , 1 0 8 7 (3d C ir

. 1 9 7 5 ). T h e view p o int discrim ination v isi ted u p o n B u sch d iffe rs fr om t he tr eatm enti n W a lz . T h o u g h w e d id n o t ex p licitly addr es s t he s ubj ectm at t er/ vi ew poi ntdi s t i nct i on i n W a lz , the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s t hor ough anal y s i s i n t hatcas e s how s thatthe r egul at i on w as vi ew p o intneutr al ; the s chool di d notopen the fo ru m to d i scuss any s ubj ect s . B ycontr as t , her e the School D i s t r i cts ol i ci t ed s peec h, but t hen di s cr i m i nat ed on the bas i s of v iew p o in t b y re f

u sin g to a llo w D o n n a B u sc h to e x p re ss h e rse lf fr om a r el i gi ous per s pect i ve. H avi n g opened the pr overbi alI a lso d e p a rt f ro m th e m a

jo rity ’s b rie f

f o ru m a n a ly sis in 14 Par tI I

. A of i t s opi ni on. A s the Supr eme C our tnot ed i n P erry , “[t ] he exi s t ence of a r i ghtof ac ces s t o publ i c pr oper t yand the s t andar d byw hi ch l i m i t at i ons upon s uch a r i gh t m u s tbe eval uat ed di ffe rdepen d ing on the cha r act erof the pr oper t yat i s s ue. ” 460 U

. S. at44. A ccor di ng ly , the Supr eme C our t“has adopt ed a f

orum anal y s i s as a means of det erm i ni ng w hen the G overnm ent ’s i nt er es ti n l i m i t i ng t he us e of i t s pr oper t yt o the i ntended pu rpose ou t w ei gh s the int eres t of tho se w i shi ng t o u se t he pr oper t yforot herpurpos es . ” C or nel ius v

. N A A C P Legal D ef ens e & E duc. Fund , 4 7 3 U

. S

. 7 8 8 , 8 0 0 (19 8 5 ). T he D i str i ctC our tfound thatt he t eac her ’ s i nvi t at i on c o n v e r t e d t h e c l a s s r o o m i n t o a tmo s ta l i mi t e d p u b l i c f o ru m, w hi ch i s cr eat ed w hen the s t at e open s a publ i c pl ace for ex p ressive a c tiv ity. P erry , 4 6 0 U

. S

. at 45

. T h e D istri ct C o u rt acc uratel ynot ed thatt he School D i s t r i ct“opene d [the] classro o m to sp ec ifi c p eo p le, the p are n ts of [th e] stud en ts, fo r a s peci fi c del i neat ed purpos e, ” t o par t i ci pat e i n t he di s cus s i on of th e i r c h i l d r e n v ia “ A ll A b o u t M e ” w e e k

. B us ch , 2 0 0 7 WL 158 9 5 0 7 , at*6. W hi l e the Fi r s tA m endment“does not 38 P a n d o r a ’s b o x b yin v iti n g p a re n ts o f k in d e rg a rte n stu d e n ts to s pea k t o t h e c l a s s a b o u t t h e i r c h i l d r e n ’ s “ f a mi l y , h o b b i e s , and i nt er es t s , ” the School D i s t r i ctw as r equi r ed t o r es pectt he boundar i es t hati thad s et— how everopen- ended — pr ovi ded t hatt he s peec h r emai ned germ ane t o the s ubj ectm at t erand s ubj ect , of cour s e, t o the l i m i t at i ons s etfor t h i n Ti nker , Fr as er , and Morse . B eca us e t he basi s of di s cr i m i nat i on di ffe r s betw een t he tw o cas es , I do notfi nd W a lzcontr ol l i ng. 1 4guar ant ee a cce s s t o pr oper t ysi m pl ybeca us e i ti s ow ned or contr ol l ed byt he governm ent , ” U

. S. P os tal Ser v. v. G r eenbur gh C iv ic A ss’n , 453 U

. S. 114, 129 ( 1981) , w hen the s t at e has opened a forum but l i m i t s t he expr es s i ve act i vi ty t o cert ai n ki nds of s peake r s or t he di s cus s i on of ce r t ai n s ubj ect s — as t he School D i s t r i ctdi d her e — “[t ] he C ons t i tut i on forbi ds a s t at e t o enfor ce cert ai n excl us i ons . . . ev en i f i tw as notr equi r ed t o cr eat e the forum i n t he fi r s tpl ace . ” P erry , 460 U

. S. at 45. A l t hough the School D i s t r i ct s ur el y w as notr equi r ed t o i nvi t e par ent s i nt o t he c las sro o m in th e f

irst p lac e , o n c e it d id so , itc o u ld o n lya p p ly r eas onabl e t i m e, pl ace , and mannerr egul at i o n s ; cont ent
- bas ed pr ohi bi t i ons “mustbe na rr o wl yd r a wn t o eff ectuat e a c om pel l i ng s t at e i nt er es t
. ” I

d. at46. T h e m a jo rity su m m a rily c o n c lu d e s th a t th e c las sro o m is a nonpubl i c forum . E ven as s um i ng this to be the ca s e, t he gov ernm entcoul d notr es t r i cts peec h on t he bas i s of the s p e a k e r’ s v ie w p o in t. I

d. a t 4 5 ; s ee al

s o C or nel i us , 473 U

. S. at 806 ( “C ont r ol over acc es s t o a nonpubl i c forum can be bas ed on s ubj ectm at t erand s peake ri dent i t yso l ong as the di s t i nct i ons dr aw n ar e r eas onabl e i n l i ght of t he purpos e s erved byt he forum and ar e vi ew

poi ntneutr al .”) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ); C h ild E v a n g e lism Fe llo w sh ip , 3 8 6 F

. 3 d at 5 2 4 (“[ E ]ve n if th e . . . fo ra w e re n o t lim ited p u b lic f o ra b u t w e re c lo se d , [th e sc h o o l] still co u ld n o t eng ag e in v iew p o int discrim ination

. ”). 39 II. T he maj or i t y ’ s adher ence t o W a lzi s, i n m yvie w , al so fl aw ed bec ause of thatcas e’ s r el i ance on H az elw ood School D is tr i ct v. Kuhlm ei er , 484 U

. S. 260 ( 1988)

. I n H az elw ood , t he40 Supr eme C our tuphel d a pri nci pal ’ s del et i on of s tudentart i cl es on t een pr egnanc yand di vor ce f r om a s chool

- s p o ns or ed new s paper . T he C our theld tha tthe s chool coul d “exe r ci s [e] e d ito ria l co n tro l o v e r th e sty le a n d c o n ten t o f stu d e n t sp e e c h in sc h o o l- s p o n s o re d e x p re s s iv e a c tiv itie s a s lo n g a s [it s] ac ti o n s are r e a s o n a b l y r e l a t e d t o l e g i t i ma t e p e d a g o g i c a l c o n c e r n s . ” I d. at 273. H az elw ood

i s l i m i t ed t o s i tuat i ons i n w hi ch the s peec h m aybe i nt erpr et ed as comi ng fr om t he sch o o l i t s el f. A s t he Supr eme C our tacknow l edged: T he quest i on w hetherthe Fi r s tA m endment r equi r es a s chool t o t ol er at e part i cul ars tudent s peec h .

. . i s di ffe r entfr om t he ques t i on w hether t he F i r s t A m endmen tr e q u i r e s a s chool aff i r m at i vel yt o pr om ot e part i cul ars tudent spee c h. The form er quest i on add res ses educator s’ abi l i t yt o s i l ence a s tudent ’ s per s onal ex p r es s i on t hat happ ens t o o ccur o n the scho ol pr em i ses. T h e latte r qu e stio n c o n c e rn s e d u c a to rs’ a u th o rity overs chool

- s pons or ed publ i cat i ons , theatr i cal pr oduct i ons , and oth er e xpr es s i ve ac t i vi t i es that stu d e n ts, p a re n ts, a n d m e m b e rs o f th e p u b lic m i ghtr eas onabl yper cei ve t o bearthe i m pr i m atur o f th e sc h o o l. .

. . E d u c a to rs a re e n tit led to exer ci s e gre at er contr ol overthi s s econd f or m of s tudentexpr es s i on.41 I d. at271.

T he C our tr eaf

fi r m ed thi s pr i ncipl e i n R os enber ger , expl ai ni ng: [W ] hen t he St at e i s t he s peake r , i t m aym ake c o n ten t-b a se d c h o ice s. W h e n th e U n iv e rsity d e ter m in e s th e c o n ten t o f th e e d u c a tio n it p r o v i d e s , i ti s th e Un i v e r s i t ys p e a k i n g , a n d we have pe r m i t t ed t he governm entt o r egul at e the c o n ten t o f

w h a t is o r is n o t ex p r e s s e d w h e n it i s th e sp e a k e r o r w h e n it en lis ts p riv a te e n tit ies to c o n v e y i t s o wn me s s a g e . . . . I td o e s n o tf o l l o w, h o w ev er . . . that v iew p o int- b ase d restri cti o n s are pr o p er w hen the U ni ver s i t ydoes noti t s el f s peak

. . . b u ti n s t e a d e n c o u r a g e [ s ] a d i v e r s i t yo f v i e ws fro m p r i vat e s peake r s . A hol di ng thatt he U ni ver s i t ym aynotdi s cr i m inat e bas ed on the v iew p o in t o f

p riv a te p e r s o n s w h o se sp e e c h it f a c i l i t a t e s d o e s n o tr e s tr i c tth e U n i v e r s i t y ’ s o wn s peec h, w hi ch i s contr ol l ed bydi ffe r ent pri ncipl es. 5 1 5 U .S . a t 8 3 3 -3 4

. See al s o P l eas ant G r ove Ci t

y v. Sum m um , 129 S. C t
. 1125, 1131- 34 ( 200 9 ) (n o t i ng di s t i nct i on betw een g o v ern m en t spe ec h an d p ri v ate sp ee ch ). I fi nd H az elw ood

inap p o sit e to this a p p ea l bec au se th ere i s no r i s k t hat B us ch’ s s peec h w oul d “bea rt he i m pr i m aturof the s chool , ” H

az elw ood , 484 U

. S. at271, norw i l l i tbe mi s t aken f or
“ t h e [ s c h o o l ’ s ] o wn s p e e ch. ” R o s enber ger , 515 U

. S. at834.T he l i keli h o o d that a k ind erg art en s tudentw oul d engage 15 th is a ss ig n m e n t w ith o u t p a re n tal in f lu e n c e a n d c o n tro l is exce edi ngl yr emot e. A nd t he var i ous appr oache s that a par ent m i ghtt ake i n t hi s r egar d ar e as i di os yncr at ic a s t he numberof parent s. 42 H e re , “A ll A b o u t M e ” w e e k w a s d e s ig n e d to h e lp stu d e n ts “i dent i fyi ndi vi dual i nt er es t s and l earn aboutothers

. ” The t eac herexpl ai n ed t o par ent s that“[e ] ach c hi l d w i l l have the oppor tuni t yt o s har e i nform at i on aboutt hemsel ves [s i c] dur i ng t hei r‘ A l l A bout M e’ w eek. ” Student s w er e i nvi t ed t o s end i n a p o s t e rw i t h p i c tu r e s o f t h e i r f a v o r i t e t h i n g s , b r i n g i n s p e c i a l t o ys o r sn a c k s to sh a re w ith th e c las s, a n d p a re n ts w e re w e lco m e to “come t o s chool t o s har e a t al ent , s hor tgame, s m al l craft , or s t or y . ” Ev e r yt h i n g f

r o m t h e t i t l e o f

t h e e x e r c i s e – “ Al l Abo ut Me ” w ee k – to th e s p ec ifi c re q u ests m ad e b ythe tea ch er, i ndi cat ed that t he s tudent( or , i n r eal i t y , t he par ent ) w as s peaki ng a n d n o t th e sc h o o l. T hi s i s di s t i ngui s habl e fr om the s i tuat i on 15 i n H az elw ood , w h ich c o n tain e d n u m e ro u s ind icia o f s c h o o lsp o n so rsh ip , i ncludi ng : the n ew sp a p e r w a s p ro d u c e d b ystu d e n ts i n a j our nal i s m cl as s t hat w as par t of the s chool curr i cul um ; t he s ch o o l f i n a n c e d t h e p a p e ra n d i twas t h e o f f i c i a l s c h o ol n e w s p a p e r ; t h e s tu d e n t s ’ w o r k w a s r e v i e w e d a n d g r a d e d b y a fac ul t ym emberand the ent i r e pape rw as s ubje ctt o the r evi ew o f th e p ri n c ip a l p ri o r t o p u b lic a tio n . See H az elw ood , 48 4 U. S. at268- 69. A s W a lz i t s el f i ndi cat es , “[i ] ndi vi dual s tudentexpr es s i on t hatar t i cul at es a part i cul arvi ew butthatcomes i n r es pons e t o a cl as s as s i gnm entw oul d appea rt o be pr ot ect ed

. ” 3 4 2 F. 3d at 279. “[N ] ot hi ng i n H

az elw ood

s ugges t s t hati t s s t andar d appl i es43 w h en a stu d en t i s ca ll ed u p o n to ex p ress h is o r he r pers onal v i ew s i n cl as s ori n an as s i gnm ent
. ” O l i va , 2 2 6 F. 3d at213 ( A l i t o, J

. , di s s ent i ng) ( emphasi s added)

. D onna B us ch’ s s peec h ca m e in re sp o n se to the tea ch er’s b roa d inv it ati o n to s h are s om ethi ng aboutherchi l d; once i nvi t ed, t he School D i s t r i ctw as obl i ged t o “t ol er at e” her s peec h, not t o “af fi r m at i vel ypr om ot e” it. H az elw ood , 4 8 4 U .S

. a t 2 7 1 . “S c h o o l- o r g o v e rn m e n ts pons ored s peec h occur s w hen a publ i c s chool orother governm ent al ent i t yai m s ‘ t o convey i t s ow n m es s age. ’ ” C h ild E v a n g e lism Fe llo w sh ip , 386 F. 3d at524 ( quot i ng R os enber ger , 515 U

. S. at833)

. B ycontr as t , w hen the s chool s ol i ci t s t he expr es s i on of “a di ver s i t yof vi ew s fr om pr i vat e s peake r s , ” the e x p re s s io n th a t r e s u lts is p ri v a te
. I d.

I n W a lz , this C o u r t s e e m e d c o n c e r n e d th a t yo u n g s tu d e n ts w oul d notbe abl e t o di s t i ngui s h betw een s chool

- s pons or ed s peec h and s peec h f

r o m pr i vat e i ndi vi dual s , and “the s chool m ay w i s h t o avoi d t he appe ar ance of endor s i ng cert ai n s peec h. ” 342 F

. 3 d at 27 7

. A cc o rdin g ly , w e se t fo rth a n u m b er o f f ac tors a g a in st w h ich to m e a su re th e p ro p rie ty o f stu d e n t ex p re ss io n in an el ement arys chool s ett i ng, i ncl udi ng: t he type of s peec h; t he age of t he s peake rand audi ence ; t he s chool ’ s control overt he act i vi t yi n w hi ch the expr es s i on occur s ; and w hetherthe s chool s o lic its in d iv id u a l v ie w s f ro m s tu d e n ts d u ri n g th e a c tiv ity. I d. at278. T he W

a lzfac t or s s tr ike m e as hi ghl ym ani pul abl e and t her efor e mayencompas s s peec h — s uch as t he expr essi on at i s s ue i n t hi s cas e

— that w i l l not be r eas onabl y perc eive d as s chool

- s pons or ed. E ven ki nder gar t en s tud ent s ar e capabl e ofB eca us e I fi nd thatt he s peech in ques t i on coul d not 16 have borne the i m pr i m aturof the School D i s t r i ct , I al s o r ej ect the D istri c t C o u rt ’s co n clus ion that the S ch o o l D istri ct’s vi ew point di s cr i m i nat i on w as nece s s aryt o avoi d an E sta b lish m e n t C lau se v io latio n . “ T h e E sta b lish m e n t C lau se is notvi ol at ed w hen the go v ern m enttr eat s r el i gi ous s peec h and ot her s peec h equal l y and a r eas onabl e observerw oul d notvi ew t he governm entpr act i ce a s endor s i ng r el i gi on. ” O l i va , 225 F. 3d at211 ( A l i t o, J

. , di s sen t i ng) ( ci t i ng Ca p i t o lSq u a r e Re v i e w & 44 di s t i ngui s hi ng betw een p er s onal “s how and t el l ” ac t i vi t i es and s chool

- s pons or ed i ns truct i on. A s w e obs erved i n W a lz : T he appr opr i at enes s of s tudents peec h m us tbe v iew e d in its e d u c a tio n a l c o n tex t. F o r a s tu d e n t in “s how and t el l ” t o pas s ar ound a C hr i s t m as or namentora dr ei del , and des cr i be w hat t he i t em m eans t o hi m , m ayw el l be cons i s t ent w i t h t he act i vi t y ’ s educa t i onal goal s ; l i kew i s e, a l es s on t hati ncl udes a mock debat e i nvi t es i ndi vi dual stud ent express i on on the rel evan tt op i c. In tho se s cena r i os , the s tudents peake ri s expr es s i ng h im s e lf i n t he cont extof a s chool as s i gnm entor a c t i v i t y w here the scho ol has sou g h tst ud ents ’ persona lvi ew s. 3 4 2 F

. 3 d at 27 8 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T he spee ch at i ssue i n this a p p eal cl osel yres em bles a “s how and t el l ” exe r ci s e. A ccor di ngl y , D onna B us ch’ s s peec h di d not“bear the i m pr i m aturof the s chool ” and H az elw ood

is i nappos i t e. 16A dv is o r y B d . v . P in e tte , 515 U

. S. 753, 763- 70 ( 1995) ( pl ur al i t y ) )

. B eca us e the s peech came fr om B us ch and c annot be cons i d ere d s chool

- s pons or ed, i tdi d notvi ol at e the E s t abl i s hm entC l aus e. 45 III

.
Fi nal l y , I n o t e t h a t e v e n i f we wer e t o f i n d t hat H az elw ood

s houl d contr ol thi s cas e bec a u s e a n ys peec h t o y oung c h ild re n is l ik e ly to b e p e rc e iv e d a s b e in g sc h o o l-sp o n so re d , this w oul d notconcl ude ouri nqui ry . I n ho lding thata s chool m ay r egul at e s chool

- s pons or ed expr es s i ve ac t i vi t i es s o long a s the r egul at i on i s “r eas onabl y r el at ed t o l egi t i m at e p edagogi cal conce r ns , ” the Haz elw ood C o u rtjusti fied the p ri n cipa l’ s deci s i on t o di s cr i m i nat e on t he bas i s of cont ent ; butt hatdeci s i on does notnece s s ar i l yoffe ranyj us ti fi cat i on foral l ow i ng educa t or s to d i s cr i m i nat e bas ed on vi ew poi nta b se n t a c o m p e lli n g g o v e rn m e n t in ter e st. A s t he Supr eme C our thel d i n H az elw ood , “educ at or s do notoffe nd t he Fi r s tA m endmentby exer ci s i ng edi t or i al contr ol overt he sty le and cont ent of students peec h i n s chool

- s pons or ed e x p re ss iv e a c tiv iti e s so lo n g a s the ir a c tio n s a r e r e a so n a b ly r el at ed t o l egi t i m at e peda gogi cal conce r ns . ” 484 U

. S. at273 ( emphas i s a d d e d )

. Th e s c h o o l o f f i c i a l s i n t h a tc a s e c o n c eded t hatan yr e s t r i ct i ons on s chool

- s pons or ed s tudents peec h m us tbe v ie w p o in t n e u t ra l. I

d. at 28 7 n . 3 (B ren n an , J. , co n cu rri n g ). M or e funda m ent al l y , i f s chool s coul d i m pos e vi ew poi nt
- bas ed r es t r i ct i ons on al l stud ents peec h t hatm i ghtbe per cei ved as s chool

- s pons or ed, t he pr om i s e of Ti nker— thats tudent s “do not46 s hed thei rcons t i tut i onal r i ght s t o fr ee d o m o f s peec h or expr es s i on att he s chool hous e gat e” — w oul d m ean ve r yl i t t l e. Ti nker , 393 U

. S. at506. Be c a u s e Ha z elw ood

di d notaddr es s t he i s s ue of v ie w p o in t d isc rim in a tio n , the q u e stio n o f w h e th e r sc h o o ls pons or ed s peec h can d i s cr i m i nat e on the bas i s of vi ew poi nt re m a i ns op en and our si st er cou rt s of appe al s are spl i t on th is iss u e . S o m e c irc u its h a v e f o u n d th a t H

az elw ood

r equi r es t hat t he s chool ’ s r eg u l a t i o n o n l yb e r eas onabl yr el at ed t o pedagogi cal c o n c e rn s . See F l em i ng v. Jef f erson C ou nty Sch. D ist
. , 298 F. 3d 9 1 8 , 9 2 6 -2 9 ( 1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); W ar d v. Hi cke

y , 996 F. 2d 448, 4 5 4 (1 st C ir. 1 9 9 3 ); s ee al s o C

. H

. ex r el

. Z. H

. v. O l i va , 195 F. 3d 1 6 7 , 1 7 2 -73 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 9 ), vacated and r eh’ g en banc (“ H az elw ood

clea rl ysta n d s fo r th e p rop o sit ion that ed u ca tors m ayi m pos e non- vi ew

poi ntneutr al r es t r i ct i ons on t he cont entof s tudents peec h i n s chool

- s pons or ed expr es s i ve ac t i vi t i es s o l ong a s th o se re stric tio n s a re re a so n a b ly r e late d to leg iti m a te ped a g o gical con cerns. ”) ( em ph asi s added ). In ess ence, these cour t s r ead H

az elw ood as estab li sh ing a rati o n al ba sis st an d ard fo r spe ec h in the p u b lic s ch o o l set ti n g . T h e D istri ct C o u rt embra ced thi s s t andar d, hol di ng t hat“s chool s m ayr es t r i ct s peec h eve n bas ed on i t s vi ew poi nt‘so lon g as th eir acti o n s are r eas onabl yr el at ed t o l egi t i m at e peda gogi cal conce r ns . ’ ” B us ch , 2 0 0 7 W L 1 5 8 9 5 0 7 , at *9 (em p h asis ad d ed ). B ycontr as t , other ci r cui tcour t s of appe al s have i nt erpr et ed the H

az elw ood

stan d ard to req u ir e tha t a sch o o l’ s re stric tio n b e n o t o n lyre a so n a b le, b u t als o v iew p o in t n e u tra l. S e e P e c k v . B a ldw in sv ill e C e n t. Sc h . D ist. , 426 F. 3d 617, 626, 6 2 9 -3 0 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); P l anned P ar enthood of S. N evada, I nc. v . C la rk C o u n ty S c h . D ist. , 9 4 1 F

. 2 d 8 1 7 , 8 2 9 (9th C ir

. 1 9 9 1 );N ei t hert he W a lz co u r tnort he maj or i t yher e w oul d have 17 h ad o cc asio n to clarifyw h ethe r H az elw ood

di s al l o w ed vi ew poi ntdi s cr i m i nat i on, beca us e, as not ed above , nei t her opi ni on addr es s ed the ques t i on w hethert he di s cr i m i nat i on w as bas ed on s ubj ectm at t erorvi ew poi nti n t he fi r s tpl ace . 47 S e a rc e y v . H a rr is , 8 8 8 F .2 d 1 3 1 4 , 1 3 2 0 (1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ); s ee al s o O l i va , 22 6 F. 3d at 21 1 (A l i t o, J. , dis sent i ng ). C i t i ng t hese cas es , B us ch argues t hatw hen a publ i c s chool opens a l i m i t ed publ i c forum , t he gene r al rul e pr ohi bi t i ng view poi nt
- bas ed r es t r i ct i ons r emai ns eff ect i ve des pi t e H

az elw ood

. Wi t h o u te x p l i c i t l ye mb r a c i n g e i t h e ro f t h e s e two per s pect i ves vi s - à- vi s vi ew poi ntdi s cr i m inat i on, w e conc l uded i n W a lzt hat “i n t he cont ext of i t s cl as s r oom hol i daypar t i es , the s chool ’ s r es t r i ct i ons on t hi s expr es s i on w er e desi gned t o pr event pro sel yt i zi ng speech t hat, i f perm i t t ed, w ou l d b e atcross purpos es w i t h i t s educa t i onal goal and coul d appea rt o beart he s chool ’ s s eal of appr oval

. ” 342 F. 3d at 280 ( ci t i ng H az elw ood , 484 U

. S. at273)

. G i ven the s choo l’ s val i d educa t i onal p u rp o s e s , th is C o u rt re a s o n e d , its a c tio n s w e re a p p ro p ri a te
. I d. T h e C o u rtd id n o t exp lai n its lev el of scru ti n y , h o w ev er. L i kew i s e, i n t he pr es entcas e, the maj or i t ym akes s par s e ment i on of Ha zelw ood

and does notatt empt t o j us t i fyt he s chool ’s vi ew poi ntdi s cr i m i nat i on under eit h er r at i onal bas i s r evi ew or s t r i c ts c ru t i n y. 17 If w e w ish to c o n c lu d e th a t H az elw ood gr ant s s chool s t he p o w e rt o d i s c r i m i n a t e o n t h e b a s i s o f v i e w p o i n t , I t h i n k we s h o u l d d o s o e x p l i c i t l y . Th i s Cou r t ’ s a p p r o a c h i n W a lza n d in th is ap p e a l, h o w e v e r p ra g m a tic o r c o m m o n se n sic a l, l e n d s itse lf48 t o ad hoc j ur i s prudence

. I r ecomm end thatw e es t abl i s h cl ear rul es r e g ar di ng vi ew poi ntdi s cr i m i nat i on i n t he cl as s r oom . “The need f o r sp eci fi ci t yi s es peci al l yi m por t antw her e, as her e, t he r egul at i on ati s s ue i s a ‘c ont ent
- bas ed re gul at i on of s peec h. T he vaguene s s of such a r egul at i on r ai s es s peci al Fi r s tA m endment co n ce rns b ec au se of

it s o b v iou s ch il li n g ef

fe ct on fre e sp ee ch

. ’” Sypni ew s kiv. W

ar r en Hi l l

s R eg’l B d

. o

f Educ. , 307 F. 3d 243, 266 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng Ren o v . AC LU, 521 U

. S. 844, 871- 7 2 (1 9 9 7 )); see al

so S p e ise r v . R a n da ll , 357 U

. S

. 513, 526 ( 1958) ( “W hen one m us tgues s w hatconductorut t er ance m ay l os e hi m hi s pos i t i on, one neces s ar i l y w i l l ‘ s t eer far w i derof the u n law fu l zon e.’”) (ci tat ion o m itted).

I V.

C lea rly , “th e c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts o f stu d e n ts in p u b lic s chool ar e notaut om at i cal l ycoext ens i ve w i t h the r i ght s of ad u lt s i n ot hers et t i ngs . ” Fr as er , 4 7 8 U. S. a t 6 8 2

. I t d o es not fol l ow , how ever , t hatthe stat e mayr egul at e one’ s vi ew poi nt m e re lyb e c a u se sp e e c h o c c u rs in a sc h o o lh o u se — e sp e c ially w h e n th e f

a c ts o f th e c a se d e m o n stra te th a t th e sp e e c h is p erso n al t o the stud en t an d /or h is p are n t r athe r th an the s ch o o l’ s s peec h. T he maj or i t y ’ s des i r e t o pr ot ecty oung chi l dr en fr om pot ent i al l yi nfl uent i al s pe e c h i n th e c l a s s r o om i s under s t andabl e. B utt hat g o al, how everadmi r abl e, does notal l ow the g o v e rn m e n t to o f

f e r a stu d e n t a n d h is p a re n ts th e o p p o rtu n ityto exp res s som et hing abo ut them sel ves, e x cept w hat i s m ostI agr ee l ar gel yw i t h the s ent i m ent s J udge B arr yexpr es s es 18 i n herconcurr ence . L i ke J us t i ce Th o m as ’ s r ece ntconcurr i ng o p i n i o n i n Morse , J udge B arr yharkens back t o a dayw hen A m er i can s chool s w er e run bypr i nci pal s and t eac her s , act i ng in lo c o p a re n tis , w i t h li t t l e or no int rusi on f rom l aw y ers , cou rt s, a n d p a re n ts
. See Morse , 1 2 7 S . C t. a t 2 6 3 0 -3 6 (T h o m a s , J ., c o n c u r r i n g )

. Bu tt h i s i s n o t wh e r e we f i n d o u r s e l v e s t o d a y . As lon g as o u r sch o o ls co n ti n u e to p rov ide a fo rum fo r s o me p a r e n t s a n d t e a c h e r s t o e s p o u s e t h e i rv i e ws i n p u b l i c s c h o o l s , we m us tm an ag e the s peec h of a ll par ent s and t eac her s w i t hi n the gui s e of the Fi r s tA m endment , l es tw e enga ge i n t he verys or tof v iew p o in t d isc rim in a tio n th a t th e A m e n d m e n t w a s d e sig n e d to p ro te c t a g a in s t. A n “el ement arys chool exce pt i on” or“ki nder gar t en exc ept i on” t o t he F i r s tA m endments eems s ens i bl e t o m e. H ow ever , i ns t ead o f e sta b lish in g s u c h a n e x c e p tio n — w h ich w o u ld d e leg a te to s chool s t he pow ert o det erm i ne w hati s sai d and done i n t he cl assr oo m — t he m aj ori t yop i nion m erel yal l ow s this sc h o o l to p ro h ib it a v iew p o in t, ge rm a n e to th e a ss ig n m e n t, th a t it di s favor s . I n addi t i on, I ques t i on w hetherthe cr ea ti o n of s uch a n e x c e p t i o n s h o u l d b e th e e x c l u s i v e p r o v i n c e o f th e S u p r e me C o u rt. 49 im p o rta n t to th e m . W ith re sp e c t, I d iss e n t. 18