A California first grader was punished for a drawing he drew at school, resulting in federal lawsuit Explore whether the First Amendment extends to first-grade classrooms.
The family’s complaint alleges that in March 2021, the elementary school student, referred to as “BB” in legal documents, drew a sketch depicting several people of different races, representing “three classmates and herself holding hands.” Get started.” Above the picture, BB wrote “Black Lives Mater” [sic] “Any Life” was written underneath the sign.
BB then gave the painting to one of her black classmates in an attempt (as she later testified) to comfort her classmate.
words any life Of course, something along the lines of “all lives matter,” which later became Controversial rebuttal The Black Lives Matter movement launched in 2020 after the killing of George Floyd.
This similarity—whether the first grader realizes it or not—quickly puts BB in trouble. The same day she created the painting, school principal Jesus Becerra told BB her painting was “inappropriate” and allegedly “racist.” (The two sides dispute whether Becerra told BB the painting was “racist.” The defense claims BB’s testimony on the issue was inconsistent.)
BB was forced to apologize to her classmates, banned from drawing anymore at school, and banned from school for two weeks.
According to court documents reviewed reasonBB and her mother, Chelsea Boyle, filed a series of complaints against the Capistrano Unified School District, alleging First Amendment violations.
“For over a hundred years, the Supreme Court has recognized that children retain their civil rights while in school,” Caleb Trotter, a lawyer with Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) who represents the family, told us reason. “Just as public schools cannot punish children who refuse to pledge and salute the American flag, Capistrano Unified school officials cannot punish BB for inadvertently deviating from ethnocentric orthodoxy.”
In February of this year, District Court Judge David O. Carter rule In favor of the defendant, “it attaches great importance to the fact that the student involved is a first-year student.” PLF has appealed the decision, and the case will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A PLF spokesperson said reason The case will likely go to oral arguments sometime in 2025.
In his opinion granting summary judgment, Judge Carter acknowledged that “BB’s intentions were innocent,” but pointed to relevant Supreme Court case law, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), “No attention is paid to the speaker’s intention.”
quite, Tinker It held that while First Amendment protections generally extend to public schools, each case hinges on whether the speech in question would “seriously interfere with the discipline necessary for the functioning of the school.”
Barry McDonald, a law professor at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law, said this area of case law is “very vague.” “exist Tinker In that case, the Supreme Court stated that student speech was protected unless it seriously disrupted the educational process or violated the rights of other students,” McDonald told reason. “The Supreme Court has never clarified the meaning of the latter phrase, and lower courts have had difficulty interpreting its meaning.”
This ambiguity has created confusion as courts have struggled to define the boundaries of educational speech protections. Did BB’s drawing disrupt the class? Does it constitute an “intrusion”? rights of others”, e.g. Tinker? How much of a factor does her age factor into the equation? Perhaps most important: How much discretion should courts give schools to make these decisions? The Ninth Circuit will be tasked with answering these questions and more when it hears the case in 2025. explain Last month, in response to Carter’s summary judgment: “As ridiculous as this case is, if the decision is allowed to stand… it sets a precedent.”
“We are aware of the current media attention on this matter,” a spokesperson for the Capistrano Unified School District said. “The district disputes the version of events circulated by the media and we look forward to resolving this case through appropriate legal channels.”
