Opinion ID: 3051961
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: District’s School Uniform Policies Are

Text: 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.