Opinion ID: 3051961
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District’s School Uniform Policies Need

Text: Only Withstand Intermediate Scrutiny to be Constitutional The court below concluded that the District’s uniform policies did not infringe upon students’ rights to engage in pure v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 409 (1974) (per curiam). Rather, we follow the Fifth Circuit’s lead and assume (without deciding) that wearing clothing different from one’s classmates is sufficiently expressive of a student’s views about non-conformity to merit First Amendment protection. See Littlefield v. Forney Indep. Sch. Dist., 268 F.3d 275, 285-86 (5th Cir. 2001); Canady, 240 F.3d at 440-41 & n.3. JACOBS v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. 5193 speech or expressive conduct because the policies withstood intermediate scrutiny.23 Jacobs v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 373 F. Supp. 2d 1162, 1181, 1185-87 (D. Nev. 2005). Plaintiffs take issue with this analysis from the outset, arguing that applying intermediate scrutiny to student speech is foreclosed by Chandler v. McMinnville School District, 978 F.2d 524 (9th Cir. 1992). Specifically, they argue that, under Chandler, speech that is neither “vulgar, lewd, obscene, [or] plainly offensive” nor “school-sponsored”—like the speech Plaintiffs wish to engage in here—must be analyzed under the stricter standard the Supreme Court utilized in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 509 (1969),24 and, most importantly, that Chandler leaves room for no other alternative. Plaintiffs’ argument is superficially appealing. Chandler laid out three categories of student speech—“(1) vulgar, lewd, obscene, and plainly offensive speech, (2) school-sponsored 23 Intermediate scrutiny’s precise contours vary slightly depending upon which constitutional right is at issue. In the First Amendment context, intermediate scrutiny takes the form of the “O’Brien test” for restrictions on expressive conduct, see United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376-77 (1968), and the “time, place and manner test” for viewpoint- and contentneutral restrictions on pure speech, see Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 661-62 (1994). See also Clark v. Cmty. for Creative NonViolence, 468 U.S. 288, 298 (1984) (confirming that the two tests are, in essence, identical). 24 That is, that the restriction is unconstitutional unless the school can show that “engaging in the forbidden conduct would ‘materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.’ ” Id. (quoting Burnside v. Byers, 363 F.2d 744, 749 (5th Cir. 1966)). Although Tinker did not equate its “substantial interference” test with the “strict scrutiny test” that is now commonly used in First Amendment cases (perhaps because that terminology was not in common parlance at the time, see First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978) (earliest Supreme Court case using this terminology in the free speech context)), Plaintiffs’ argument rests on the “substantial interference” test being more difficult to withstand than the intermediate scrutiny test. 5194 JACOBS v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. speech, and (3) speech that falls into neither of these categories”—and explained that speech in the first category should be analyzed under Bethel School District Number 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), speech in the second category should be analyzed under Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), and speech in the third category should be analyzed under Tinker, 393 U.S. at 513-14. See 978 F.2d at 529. As both parties concede, Plaintiffs’ speech falls into neither of the first two categories. Plaintiffs thus argue that, just as the policy in Tinker was found unconstitutional because allowing students to wear black armbands in silent protest would not “substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students,” 393 U.S. at 509, the policy here (i.e., forbidding students from wearing their choice of clothing to school) should be found unconstitutional because it fails Tinker’s “substantial interference” test, as well. What Plaintiffs miss—but the district court and one of our sister circuits have correctly recognized—is a key flaw in this logic. See Canady v. Bossier Parish Sch. Dist., 240 F.3d 437, 441-43 (5th Cir. 2001); Jacobs, 373 F. Supp. 2d at 1175-81. While Chandler certainly says that all speech in the third category must be analyzed under Tinker, it does not say that all speech in this category has to be evaluated at the same level of scrutiny as that ultimately used in Tinker. In other words, while Chandler dictates that Tinker must guide our analysis of this case, it does not require us to blindly apply the standard employed therein. We thus start by carefully examining what the Tinker decision does—and, even more importantly, what it does not—say. JACOBS v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. 5195
Regulations of Pure Speech and Regulations Affecting Expressive Conduct Should be Evaluated In Tinker, a group of students had arranged to wear black armbands to school to protest the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War. 393 U.S. at 504. Upon learning of this plan, the Des Moines Independent School District adopted a policy prohibiting students from wearing such armbands, apparently fearing the disturbance they might cause. Id. at 504, 508. When the students were suspended for violating the no-armband policy, they filed suit, arguing that the policy violated their rights to free speech under the First Amendment. Id. at 504. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that, “[i]n order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.” Id. at 509. The Court further explained: [I]n our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority’s opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk; and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom—this kind of openness—that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this rel- atively permissive, often disputatious, society. 5196 JACOBS v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. Id. at 508-509 (internal citation omitted). [5] In short, the Court made clear that suppressing the expression of unpopular or controversial opinions—even in the name of avoiding potential in-school disturbances—was a violation of the First Amendment unless the school could show that, absent such suppression, the school’s orderly operation would be “materially and substantially” compromised. Id. at 509. [6] Despite Plaintiffs’ attempt to read Tinker more broadly, this is all Tinker expressly holds. Two things are notable about this limited holding. First, as the Court itself made clear, its “substantial interference” test applies only to restrictions on “pure speech,” and does not necessarily apply to school policies placing incidental restrictions on expressive conduct. See id. at 507-08 (“The problem posed by the present case does not relate to regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing, to hair style, or deportment.”); King v. Saddleback Jr. Coll. Dist., 445 F.2d 932 (9th Cir. 1971) (declining to employ Tinker analysis to student’s claim that policy disallowing long hair for male students violated the First Amendment). Thus, Tinker leaves unresolved the question of how restrictions upon expressive conduct in schools should be evaluated.25 But see generally Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 406 (1989) (“The government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting [pure speech].”). [7] Second, the holding itself extends only to viewpointbased speech restrictions, and not necessarily to viewpointneutral speech restrictions. Although these two terms of art had not yet been used by the Supreme Court when Tinker was decided in 1969, see Young v. Am. Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50 (1976), the Tinker opinion makes clear that the Court’s principal objection to the armband prohibition was 25 We take up this as-yet unresolved question in Part II.A.1.c. JACOBS v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. 5197 that it was motivated by a “desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that . . . accompany an unpopular viewpoint.” 393 U.S. at 509 (emphasis added). In essence, the Court found the armband prohibition unconstitutional not simply because it worked to prohibit students from engaging in a form of pure speech, but because it did so based on the particular opinion the students were espousing. Id. at 510-11 (finding it significant “that the school authorities did not purport to prohibit the wearing of all symbols of political or controversial significance, . . . [but only] the wearing of armbands . . . worn to exhibit opposition to this Nation’s involvement in Vietnam”). Although a slightly more expansive reading of Tinker suggests that its mode of analysis should also be used when a school’s regulation is content-based (not only when it is viewpoint-based),26 no reading of Tinker suggests that viewpoint- and content-neutral restrictions on student speech should also be subjected to “Tinker scrutiny.” Indeed, neither this court nor the Supreme Court has ever analyzed a contentneutral restriction on student speech under Tinker; rather, the Tinker test has only been employed when a school’s restrictions have been based, at least in part, on the particular messages students were attempting to communicate.27 26 As Supreme Court jurisprudence since Tinker has made clear, viewpoint-based and content-based restrictions on speech are, for the most part, equally pernicious and, thus, restrictions of either variety must ordinarily be subjected to the same degree of scrutiny. See, e.g., Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 544 (2001); Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1055 (9th Cir. 2000) (both viewpoint-based and content-based speech restrictions trigger strict scrutiny). 27 See Tinker, 393 U.S. at 509; Pinard v. Clatskanie Sch. Dist. 6J, 467 F.3d 755 (9th Cir. 2006) (students suspended for signing petition criticizing football coach); LaVine v. Blaine Sch. Dist., 257 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2001) (student expelled for showing teacher poem he wrote containing imagery of violent death and suicide); Chandler, 978 F.2d at 529 (students prohibited from wearing buttons containing the word “scab” during a teacher strike); Karp v. Becken, 477 F.2d 171 (9th Cir. 1973) (student sus5198 JACOBS v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. It is thus our view that Tinker says nothing about how viewpoint- and content-neutral restrictions on student speech should be analyzed, thereby leaving room for a different level of scrutiny than that employed in either Bethel, Hazelwood, or Tinker when student speech is restricted on a viewpoint- and content-neutral basis. Accord Canady, 240 F.3d at 441-43.28
Viewpoint- and Content-Neutral Before turning to precisely what level of scrutiny that should be, we pause to explain why we find the school uniform policies at issue in this case to be both viewpoint- and pended for attempting to distribute signs protesting school’s refusal to renew an English teacher’s contract); Hatter v. L.A. City High Sch. Dist., 452 F.2d 673 (9th Cir. 1971) (students suspended for distributing leaflets and wearing tags opposing school’s chocolate drive). To our knowledge, every other circuit has applied Tinker in this manner, as well. See, e.g., Guzick v. Drebus, 431 F.2d 594 (6th Cir. 1970) (applying Tinker when student suspended for refusing to remove an antiwar button), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 948 (1971); Scoville v. Bd. of Educ. of Joliet High Sch. Dist. 204, 425 F.2d 10 (7th Cir. 1970) (applying Tinker when students expelled for distributing a non-school-sponsored newspaper critical of the school); see also Behymer-Smith v. Coral Acad. of Sci., 427 F. Supp. 2d 969 (D. Nev. 2006) (applying Tinker when student prohibited from reciting poem containing the words “hell” and “damn”). Although the Supreme Court recently suggested that there are some instances in which even content-based restrictions may be analyzed under a less demanding standard than that used in Tinker, see Morse v. Frederick, 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007) (upholding school’s ban on sign reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” even though it did not “substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school”), the Morse holding in no way contradicts our holding here—i.e., that content-neutral speech restrictions need not withstand Tinker scrutiny either. 28 This conclusion does not contradict Chandler, as Plaintiffs contend, but merely recognizes that there exists a fourth category of student speech that had not been explored by either this court or the Supreme Court prior to Chandler and, thus, was left unaccounted for in that case’s recitation of student speech law. JACOBS v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. 5199 content-neutral29 and, thus, deserving of a different level of scrutiny than that applied to the viewpoint-based policy in Tinker. [8] On its face, the portion of the Regulation authorizing schools to implement mandatory uniform policies is aimed at “increasing student achievement, promoting safety, and enhancing a positive school environment.” Nothing in the Regulation’s language suggests it was directed at the type of messages or specific viewpoints previously conveyed by students’ wardrobe choices; indeed, the record evidence unambiguously indicates that the District’s purpose in enacting the Regulation was to further the Regulation’s stated goals, not to suppress the expression of particular ideas.30 For example, the referendum sent to parents listing the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed uniform policy included as potential advantages: (1) “Promot[ing] safety by reducing the ability to hide weapons, drugs or alcohol”; (2) “Allow[ing] students and staff to focus more attention to increasing student achievement”; (3) “Eliminat[ing] dress differences that emphasize different income levels”; and (4) “Simplif[ying] daily school preparation and maintenance for families.” None of the proposed advantages related to the “benefits” of preventing students from expressing unpopular views or communicating about particular subjects via their clothing choices. Of course, while evidence of a viewpoint- and content29 From this point forward (unless otherwise noted), we use the term “content-neutral” to capture the dual concepts of viewpoint-neutrality and content-neutrality, and do the converse with the term “content-based.” See supra note 26 (explaining that viewpoint- and content-based speech restrictions are equally disfavored in First Amendment jurisprudence and, thus, are interchangeable insofar as they are both subject to the same degree of judicial scrutiny). 30 See Turner, 512 U.S. at 642 (“[T]he principal inquiry in determining content neutrality is whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of agreement or disagreement with the message it conveys.” (internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted)). 5200 JACOBS v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. neutral purpose strongly suggests that a regulation is, in fact, content-neutral, mere assertion of a benign purpose is insufficient to conclusively establish a regulation’s contentneutrality. Turner, 512 U.S. at 642. Here, Plaintiffs argue that, despite the District’s stated purposes, the Regulation is not content-neutral because it allows student clothing to contain the school logo—an allowance that, in Plaintiffs’ view, sanctions expression of messages touting the District’s schools, but not messages relating to any other topic or viewpoint. At first blush, Plaintiffs’ argument seems viable. Indeed, if the Regulation allowed for school uniforms that consisted only of plain-colored clothing without any words, logos, or printed material whatsoever, Plaintiffs’ argument against the Regulation’s content-neutrality would almost certainly fall flat. As it stands, however, Plaintiffs have at least a colorable claim that, by allowing student clothing to contain school logos, the Regulation reflects an impermissible content-based (and, indeed, viewpoint-based) preference for expressions of school pride. [9] While the District could have steered far clear of the First Amendment’s boundaries by foregoing the logo provision entirely, we nevertheless conclude that allowing students’ otherwise solid-colored clothing to contain a school logo—an item expressing little, if any, genuine communicative message—does not convert a content-neutral school uniform policy into a content-based one. Indeed, the District’s very narrow exception to its otherwise content-neutral school uniform policy is a far cry from those regulations previously found by the Supreme Court to be content-based. See, e.g., United States v. Playboy Entm’t Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000) (statute restricting cable companies’ dissemination of sexual programming); City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 (1993) (ordinance banning commercial handbills on news racks but allowing newspapers); Boos v. Berry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988) JACOBS v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. 5201 (statute prohibiting display of signs critical of a foreign government near a foreign embassy); Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (1980) (statute prohibiting all picketing in residential neighborhoods except labor picketing tied to a place of employment); Police Dep’t of City of Chi. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972) (similar); see also ACLU of Nev. v. City of Las Vegas, 466 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2006) (ordinance prohibiting speech soliciting donations, “charity, business or patronage”). [10] Moreover, “[w]hatever marginal expression wearing [a school] logo implicates, it does not rise to the level of expression to implicate concerns of viewpoint [non-] neutrality.” Long v. Bd. of Educ. of Jefferson County, Ky., 121 F. Supp. 2d 621, 625 n.5 (W.D. Ky. 2000). The content-based/contentneutral dichotomy is not grounded in the text of the First Amendment itself, but was created by the Supreme Court as a tool for distinguishing those regulations that seek to advance “legitimate regulatory goals” from those that seek to “suppress unpopular ideas or information or to manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion.” Turner, 512 U.S. at 641. Here, Plaintiffs put forth no evidence that the Regulation’s logo allowance was an attempt by the District to inundate the marketplace of ideas with pro-school messages or to starve that marketplace of contrary opinions; rather, all evidence suggests that the District considered the logo to be an identifying mark, not a communicative device. [11] We thus decline Plaintiffs’ invitation to take the term “content-based” to its literal extreme, and we hold that the District’s school uniform policies are content-neutral despite their allowances for clothing containing school logos.31 31 We also reject Plaintiffs’ argument that the Regulation is viewpointbased because it allows students to convey messages of conformity, but prohibits students like Dresser from expressing their views about nonconformity. First, it is unlikely students complying with a school uniform policy would be viewed by others as communicating their approval for conformity, see Spence, 418 U.S. at 410-11, thus undermining Dresser’s 5202 JACOBS v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DIST.
Standard As discussed above, the school uniform policies at issue here implicate the First Amendment only insofar as they place content-neutral restrictions on students’ pure speech and place incidental restrictions on students’ expressive conduct.32 Because neither type of restriction is governed by Tinker, see supra Part II.A.1, we must now decide how to evaluate the constitutionality of these policies. [12] Outside the school speech context, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a law restricting speech on a viewpoint- and content-neutral basis is constitutional as long as it withstands intermediate scrutiny—i.e., if: (1) “it furthers an important or substantial government interest”; (2) “the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression”; and (3) “the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.” Turner, 512 U.S. at 661-62. The same is true of a regulation that has an incidental effect on expressive conduct. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376-77 (1968).33 argument that his school’s uniform policy facilitates communication of conformist messages at all. Second, under Dresser’s logic, any policy requiring students to behave like their fellow students could be seen as favoring conformity and disfavoring non-conformity, yet nobody would seriously contend that requiring students to raise their hands before speaking, being polite to classmates, or—perhaps most relevant to this case— wearing a gym uniform, would be a viewpoint-based “speech” restriction containing an implicit preference for conformist “expression.” 32 Notably, these restrictions apply only during the school day and do not limit all speech, just “speech” that is communicated via students’ clothing. 33 O’Brien contemplates a fourth prong of the intermediate scrutiny analysis—namely, that the regulation be within the government’s power to enact. 391 U.S. at 377. Because Plaintiffs do not question the District’s power to implement mandatory school uniform policies under N.R.S. § 392.458, no further discussion of this prong is necessary. Accord Littlefield, 268 F.3d at 286. JACOBS v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. 5203 [13] We agree with the district court that this same level of scrutiny should extend to the school speech context. See Jacobs, 373 F. Supp. 2d at 1181; accord Canady, 240 F.3d at 443.34 Applying intermediate scrutiny to school policies that effect content-neutral restrictions upon pure speech or place limitations upon expressive conduct (or, as is the case here, do both) not only strikes the correct balance between students’ expressive rights and schools’ interests in furthering their educational missions, but, as the Fifth Circuit explained, is entirely consistent with the Supreme Court’s other school speech precedents, not to mention the remainder of the Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence. See Canady, 240 F.3d at 442-43.35 [14] Accordingly, if the District’s school uniform policies advance important government interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech, and do so in ways that effect as minimal a restriction on students’ free expression as possible,36 34 If anything, the scrutiny should be even less demanding, as “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and . . . the rights of students must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.” Morse, 127 S. Ct. at 2622 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Because we find that the District’s school uniform policies withstand intermediate scrutiny, however, we have no occasion to consider whether an even more lenient standard would be consistent with the Constitution. 35 Although we have never applied intermediate scrutiny in the student speech context, we have recently suggested that the standard might be appropriate for “assessing content-neutral regulations that restrict [student] speech or inherently expressive conduct.” See Pinard, 467 F.3d at 759 n.1 (declining to apply intermediate scrutiny because parties did not brief the issue, but inviting parties to explore that issue on remand). 36 While “the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms [must be] no greater than is essential to the furtherance of [the government’s] interest, . . . a regulation need not be the least speechrestrictive means of advancing the [g]overnment’s interests,” Turner, 512 U.S. at 662 (emphasis added); it need only promote “a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation,” id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 5204 JACOBS v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. then the uniform policies should be upheld. We now turn to whether those criteria are satisfied here.