Opinion ID: 2977048
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiff may wear red tape on his wrists.

Text: 3. Plaintiff may wear a black hooded sweatshirt which says on the front, “Pray to End Abortion.” 4. Jefferson School District retains the right to control the conduct if there are material and substantial disruptions or the reasonable forecast of such disruptions. 5. Plaintiff may engage in 1-3 until final judgment is entered by the Court. 6. For purposes of the equitable relief sought, Defendants are not taking the position that the literature Plaintiff seeks to distribute would cause a substantial disruption or a material interference with the normal operation of the school or school activities. The parties did not reach agreement, however, on whether Michael would be allowed to distribute his leaflets in the school hallways. In pertinent part, the school’s distribution policy provides that Students will have the right to distribute and possess in or on school premises, school buses, or at school sponsored activities any form of literature, including but not limited to newspapers, magazines, leaflets, and pamphlets. Students shall be responsible for the content of such materials. This right is, however, subject to limitation in accordance with standards of responsible journalism and in consideration of the rights and welfare of the entire student community. In order to ensure that the welfare and rights of the community are adequately protected, the following will apply in the case of any distribution of literature on school premises or at times students are under the jurisdiction of the school: 1. Any literature which a student wishes to distribute or possesses to distribute will first be submitted to the principal, or his/her designee, for approval. The principal may have up to three days to review the material before approving or disapproving. If disapproved, the principal shall state the reasons in writing. ... 3. The principal may deny approval to the distribution of any literature the content or distribution of which he/she reasonably determines: 2 Named as defendants were Stephen Kinsland, individually and in his official capacity as Principal of Jefferson Middle School; Timothy Fitzpatrick, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Jefferson School District; Andrea Werner, individually and in her official capacity as a Guidance Counselor at Jefferson Middle School; Gary Boudrie, individually and in his official capacity as a teacher at Jefferson Middle School; and the Jefferson School District. No. 07-1409 M.A.L. v. Kinsland Page 4 a. Would cause a substantial disruption of or a material interference with the normal operation of the school or school activities. b. Is potentially offensive to a substantial portion of the school community due to the depiction or description of sexual conduct, violence, morbidity or the use of language which is profane or obscene which is inappropriate for the school environment as judged by the standards of the school community. c. Is libelous or which violates the rights of privacy of any person. d. Is false or misleading or misrepresents facts. e. Is demeaning to any race, religion, sex, or ethnic group. f. Encourages violation of local, state or federal laws. ... 6. In the event the submitted publication is denied the privilege of distribution, the applicant may: a. Appeal the decision of the principal within five (5) school days to the superintendent, who shall reply within five (5) school days. b. Further appeal may be made to the Board of Education within five (5) school days. The Board shall provide a hearing within ten (10) days with the decision made at its next regular meeting. 7. Distribution is defined as giving out or division among a number of persons, sharing or parceling out, allotting, dispensing, apportioning, either by physically doing so or placing the material to be distributed in any public area so that another person may obtain the same either for a free [sic] or without charge. 8. If the principal gives his/her approval, he/she may designate a time and/or a place at which the distribution may take place. The distribution shall be orderly and the designated area for distribution shall be kept free of loosely scattered material. Although the policy is not formally distributed to students, Principal Kinsland testified that he reads any amendments to the policy to the students at an assembly at the beginning of each school year. Neither Michael nor his parents provided Michael’s proposed leaflets to the school before filing suit on January 24, and Michael did not formally seek permission to distribute them on the 31st. The school nevertheless offered to allow Michael to post his leaflets on bulletin boards in the hallways and to distribute them in the cafeteria during lunch, reasoning that the school is entitled to place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the distribution of literature. Michael was dissatisfied with the school’s offer, however, and argued pursuant to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), that the school may only regulate the time, place, and manner of his speech if his leaflet distribution is likely to cause a material and substantial disruption. The parties agreed that Michael’s leaflet distribution was not likely to cause a disruption, and Michael accordingly argued that he has a constitutional right to distribute his leaflets in the school hallways. The district court rejected the school district’s arguments and entered a preliminary injunction on January 31 prohibiting the school from restricting Michael’s leafleting in the hallways. No. 07-1409 M.A.L. v. Kinsland Page 5 The court concluded that, because the school had not demonstrated that the leafleting had caused or would cause a material and substantial disruption under Tinker, restricting Michael’s distribution to hallway bulletin boards and the cafeteria violated Michael’s First Amendment rights. The court also concluded that the school’s distribution policy was unconstitutionally overbroad because it applies to “any distribution of literature on school premises,” which the court reasoned could potentially prohibit students from distributing car or music magazines to their friends without prior approval. The district court converted its preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction on March 19, 2007, permanently enjoining the school’s enforcement of its distribution policy and specifically stating that the school could not restrict Michael’s literature distribution absent a showing that his distribution would “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of Jefferson Middle School, or intrude upon the rights of other students.” The court also awarded Michael nominal damages of one dollar. On appeal, the school district argues that it is entitled to place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on students’ distribution of literature and that the district court erred in applying the heightened Tinker standard—applicable to content and viewpoint specific regulations—to its distribution policy. The school additionally argues that the district court’s award of damages was inappropriate and that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.