PASADENA — A federal appeals court will allow an Orange County mother to resume suing her young daughter's school district for allegedly trampling the child's constitutional rights by punishing the white child for writing "Any Life" on a "Black Lives Matter" drawing she had made for a black classmate.
In the ruling, the appeals panel said U.S. District Judge David O. Carter wrongly found that the school's interest in preventing "disruption" was all that mattered in the case, because elementary school students essentially have no First Amendment speech rights at school.
"In sum, we reaffirm that although a school’s decision is entitled to deference, the school has the burden of showing that its actions were reasonably designed to protect the safety and well-being of its students," the judges wrote in the ruling. "Age is relevant as younger students are more vulnerable than students who are approaching adulthood. But, as all students, including elementary school students, have First Amendment rights, the school has the burden, under the Tinker balancing test, of showing that its actions were reasonably undertaken to protect the safety and well-being of its students."
The judges said the evidence didn't support the lower court's read on the case, at this point.
The ruling was issued as an unsigned per curiam order. "Per curiam" is a Latin term meaning "by the court."
The panel taking up the appeal included Ninth Circuit judges Consuelo M. Callahan, Roopali H. Desai and Ana de Alba.
The appeal centers on the lawsuit brought by Chelsea Boyle and her child, identified only as B.B., against the Capistrano district in 2023 in Orange County federal court.
According to court documents, at that time, B.B. was a student in first grade at the school. In March 2021, B.B.'s class read and discussed a book about the life of Martin Luther King Jr., which allegedly first introduced B.B. to the phrase and slogan "Black Lives Matter."
In the wake of historic protests and riots nationwide under that slogan, and amid a heightened emphasis on "anti-racism" in schools in California and elsewhere, B.B.'s school allegedly also prominently featured a display that included the phrase "Black Lives Matter" with a clenched fist, the symbol of the Black Lives Matter movement and other black racial and some other left-wing political causes.
According to court documents, the book and the discussion allegedly made B.B. "feel bad for a classmate of color," identified as M.C.
In class, B.B. drew a picture of M.C., and wrote "Black Lives Mater" (sic) on the drawing, and added "Any Life" beneath it using a lighter color marker.
The drawing further included four circles in different colors, which court documents state was intended by B.B. to "represent three classmates and herself holding hands."
B.B. gave the drawing to M.C., who thanked B.B. and placed the drawing in her backpack and "took it home without comment."
At home, M.C.'s parents discovered the drawing and the next day called the school's principal, identified as Jesus Becerra, to ensure the drawing was not meant to indicate their child was being singled out for discussion because she is black.
According to court documents, M.C.'s parents understood the innocent intent behind the drawing and specifically stated they did not wish for B.B. to receive any kind of discipline.
However, following the conversation, Boyle said Becerra did not abide by M.C.'s parents wishes, but instead punished B.B., calling the drawing "racist and inappropriate," noting that including the phrase "any life" alongside "Black Lives Matter" was "inconsistent with values taught in the school."
According to court documents, Becerra confronted B.B. and forced her to apologize to M.C. for drawing the picture. Both children allegedly were confused by the need to apologize, when no one had taken offense.
However, from there, Becerra prohibited B.B. from drawing pictures and giving them to classmates while at school, which Boyle's filing called "a particularly harsh punishment for a first-grade child who loved to draw."
After that, B.B.'s teachers allegedly prohibited B.B. from participating in recess with her classmates for two weeks, forcing her "to sit on a bench and watch her classmates play."
However, despite the significant punishment, the school did not inform B.B.'s parents of the punishment until more than year later.
Upon learning of the school's actions, Boyle filed administrative complaints with the district and demanded an explanation and apology.
After Boyle deemed the school district's response was deemed "unsatisfactory," Boyle and her attorneys with the nonprofit constitutional legal advocacy organization, the Pacific Legal Foundation, then filed suit in February 2023, accusing the district, Becerra and others of violating her daughter's First Amendment rights, among other counts.
In court, Judge Carter, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, sided with the school district. He found B.B.'s drawing did not amount to constitutionally protected speech, because it was outweighed by "M.C.'s right to be left alone" and First Amendment guarantees don't extend to children of that age in the schools.
He further ruled that Becerra is protected from being sued by official immunity.
On appeal, Boyle and the PLF attorneys argued Carter missed the mark in his ruling, unconstitutionally allowing the school to "chill" students' speech and send a message that drawings, even if not overtly offensive or disruptive, could result in punishment.
The school district has disputed the extent of B.B.'s punishment.
But on appeal, the Ninth Circuit panel agreed that elementary school students, while young, still enjoy at least limited First Amendment rights at school.
Relying on the landmark 1969 public school speech rights Supreme Court decision, Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Ninth Circuit panel noted student speech is protected as long as it doesn't significantly disrupt the learning environment or harm or threaten other students.
In this instance, the Ninth Circuit panel said B.B.'s drawing, while not to the liking of the recipient's mother, was still protected by the First Amendment and the Capistrano district and Becerra should be made to defend their treatment of the child in court.
"The district court emphasized that B.B. and M.C. were in first grade at the time of the incident," the court wrote. "But while age is a relevant factor under Tinker, it does not negate the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact. The students’ very young ages gave the school broader discretion, but it does not relieve the school and Becerra from meeting their burden of showing that their actions were reasonably undertaken to protect the safety and well-being of the school’s students."
In response to the ruling, the PLF, through attorney Caleb Trotter, issued a statement, saying: “Today’s ruling affirms what should be obvious: Students don’t lose their constitutional rights just because they’re young.
"The Constitution protects every student’s right to free expression. No child should be punished for expressing a well-intentioned message to a friend.”
