Source: http://bf.ahcuah.com/cases/richards.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 18:46:42+00:00

Document:
Aldrich, Chief Judge, McEntee and Coffin, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff, a seventeen year old boy, was suspended from school at the beginning of his senior year because he refused to cut his hair, which a local newspaper story introduced into evidence described as "falling loosely about the shoulders". Defendant, the principal of the high school in Marlboro, Massachusetts, admits that there was no written school regulation governing hair length or style but contends that students and parents were aware that "unusually long hair" was not permitted.
On these sparse facts the parties submitted the case posed by plaintiff's request for injunctive relief against the deprivation of his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Each relied on the failure of the other to sustain his burden of proof, plaintiff claiming that he should prevail in the absence of evidence that his appearance had caused any disciplinary problems, and defendant maintaining that plaintiff had failed to carry his burden of showing either that a fundamental right had been infringed or that defendant had not been motivated by a legitimate school concern. The district court granted plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction and ordered plaintiff reinstated. Richards v. Thurston , 304 F. Supp. 449 (D.Mass.1969).
Plaintiff, too, advances a narrow argument for prevailing -- the lack of any specific regulation authorizing suspension for unusual hair styles. We do not accept the opportunity. We take as given defendant's allegation in his answer that parents and students -- including plaintiff -- were aware that unusually long hair was not permitted. Moreover, we would not wish to see school officials unable to take appropriate action in facing a problem of discipline or distraction simply because there was no preexisting rule on the books.
Coming to the merits, we are aware of a thicket of recent cases concerning a student's wearing of long hair in a public high school.3 While several of the decisions holding against the student have relied on the prior occurrence of disruptions caused by unusual hair styles,4 we think it fair to say that many of those courts would hold against the student on a barren record such as ours, on the grounds that the student had not demonstrated the importance of the right he asserts. On the other hand, in few of the cases holding for the student was there any evidence of prior disruptions caused by hair styles. Despite the obvious disagreement over the proper analytical framework, each of the "pro-hair" courts held explicitly or implicitly that the school authorities failed to carry their burden of justifying the regulation against long hair.
What appears superficially as a dispute over which side has the burden of persuasion is, however, a very fundamental dispute over the extent to which the Constitution protects such uniquely personal aspects of one's life as the length of his hair, for the view one takes of the constitutional basis -- if any -- for the right asserted may foreshadow both the placement and weight of the evidentiary burden which he imposes on the parties before him. For this reason, we resist the understandable temptation, when one is not the final arbiter of so basic a constitutional issue, to proceed directly to an application of the constitutional doctrine without attempting to ascertain its source as precisely as possible.
The idea that there are substantive rights protected by the "liberty" assurance of the Due Process Clause is almost too well established to require discussion. Many of the cases have involved rights expressly guaranteed by one or more of the first eight Amendments.7 But it is clear that the enumeration of certain rights in the Bill of Rights has not been construed by the Court to preclude the existence of other substantive rights implicit in the "liberty" assurance of the Due Process Clause. In the 1920's the Court held that such "liberty" includes the right of parents to send their children to private schools as well as public schools and to have their children taught the German language. Pierce v. Society of Sisters , 268 U.S. 510, 534-535, 45 S. Ct. 571, 69 L. Ed. 1070 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska , 262 U.S. 390, 399-400, 43 S Ct. 625, 67 L. Ed. 1042 (1923). In 1958, the Court held that "the right to travel [to a foreign country] is a party of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles , 357 U.S. 116, 125, 78 S. Ct. 1113, 1118, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1204 (1958); followed in Aptheker v. Secretary of State , 378 U.S. 500, 505-506, 84 S. Ct. 1659, 12 L. Ed. 2d 992 (1964). More recently, the Court, without specifically ascribing its source, established the right to travel interstate as a right fundamental to our Federal Union despite the absence of any specific mention thereof in the Constitution. United States v. Guest , 383 U.S. 745, 757, 759, 86 S. Ct. 1170, 16 L. Ed. 2d 239 (1966); Shapiro v. Thompson , 394 U.S. 618, 629-631, 89 S. Ct. 1322, 22 L. Ed. 2d 600 (1969). Such a right of interstate travel being more inherent in and essential to a Federal Union than the right to travel abroad established in Kent and Aptheker ,8 we can only conclude that such right must a fortiori be an aspect of the "liberty" assured by the Due Process Clause.
We think the Founding Fathers understood themselves to have limited the government's power to intrude into this sphere of personal liberty, by reserving some powers to the people.11 The debate concerning the First Amendment is illuminating. The specification of the right of assembly was deemed mere surplusage by some, on the grounds that the government had no more power to restrict assembly than it did to tell a man to wear a hat or when to get up in the morning. The response by Page of Virginia pointed out that even those "trivial" rights had been known to have been impaired -- to the Colonists' consternation -- but that the right of assembly ought to be specified since it was so basic to other rights.12 The Founding Fathers wrote an amendment for speech and assembly; even they did not deem it necessary to write an amendment for personal appearance.13 We conclude that within the commodious concept of liberty, embracing freedoms great and small, is the right to wear one's hair as he wishes.
Determining that a personal liberty is involved answers only the first of two questions. The second is whether there is an outweighing state interest justifying the intrusion. The answer to this question must take into account the nature of the liberty asserted, the context in which it is asserted, and the extent to which the intrusion is confined to the legitimate public interest to be served. For example, the right to appear au naturel at home is relinquished when one sets foot on a public sidewalk. Equally obvious, the very nature of public school education requires limitations on one's personal liberty in order for the learning process to proceed. Finally, a school rule which forbids skirts shorter than a certain length while on school grounds would require less justification than one requiring hair to be cut, which affects the student twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, nine months a year. See Westley v. Rossi , 305 F. Supp. at 713-714.
Once the personal liberty is shown, the countervailing interest must either be self-evident or be affirmatively shown. We see no inherent reason why decency, decorum, or good conduct requires a boy to wear his hair short. Certainly eccentric hair styling is no longer a reliable signal of perverse behavior. We do not believe that mere unattractiveness in the eyes of some parents, teachers, or students, short of uncleanliness, can justify the proscription. Nor, finally, does such compelled conformity to conventional standards of appearance seem a justifiable part of the educational process.
In the absence of an inherent, self-evident justification on the face of the rule, we conclude that the burden was on the defendant. Since he offered no justification, the judgment of the district court must be affirmed.
3. Decisions holding against the student, Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School District , 392 F.2d 697 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 856, 89 S. Ct. 98, 21 L. Ed. 2d 125 (1968); Davis v. Firment , 269 F. Supp. 524 (E.D.La.1967), aff'd, 408 F.2d 1085 (5th Cir. 1969); Crews v. Cloncs , 303 F. Supp. 1370 (S.D.Ind.1969); Brick v. Board of Education , 305 F. Supp. 1316 (D.Colo.1969); Stevenson v. Wheeler County Board of Education , 306 F. Supp. 97 (S.D.Ga.1969) (mustaches); Akin v. Board of Education , 262 Cal.App.2d 161, 68 Cal.Rptr. 557 (1968); Neuhaus v. Torrey , 310 F. Supp. 192 (N.D.Cal., March 10, 1970); and Leonard v. School Committee of Attleboro , supra. Several decisions gave considerable weight to the evidence of prior disruptions of the school atmosphere caused by unusual hair styles. E.g., Ferrell , Davis , Brick . The Crews decision relied on the fact of prior disruptions concerning the particular plaintiff there involved.

References: § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.