510 F. App'x 3
2d Cir.2013Background
- A.M., an eighth-grade student and co-president of the student council, was slated to deliver a brief speech at the Middle School Moving-Up Ceremony.
- The final sentence of A.M.'s draft speech invoked religious blessing language from the Old Testament.
- Teachers Keenan and Thornton reviewed the speech and urged Principal Howard to review it; Howard scheduled a meeting to discuss it.
- Howard requested that A.M. remove the final sentence; A.M. refused, but agreed to remove it to speak at the Ceremony after her mother’s objection.
- The Ceremony was funded and organized by the School District, held in the Middle School auditorium, with District insignia and materials bearing the District’s letterhead.
- A.M. sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment and New York Constitution claims; the district court granted summary judgment to the District on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether speech at the ceremony was school-sponsored expressive activity | A.M. argues it was student speech, not school-sponsored. | The ceremony was school-sponsored, given district funding and oversight. | Yes; it was school-sponsored. |
| Whether removing the final sentence was content- or viewpoint-based | Removal was viewpoint-neutral or content-neutral overall handling. | Removal was content-based because the religious final sentence addressed a religious content. | Content-based discrimination found. |
| Whether Hazelwood applies and supports the restriction as a legitimate pedagogical concern | Hazelwood should not permit government-imposed restrictions on student religious speech. | Hazelwood allows school officials to regulate speech to avoid establishment concerns and for pedagogy. | Hazelwood standard satisfied; restriction reasonable. |
| Whether Establishment Clause concerns justify the restriction | Restriction was a means to suppress religious speech and endorsement. | Compliance with Establishment Clause is a compelling state interest justifying content-based limits. | Compelling interest found; restriction upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (U.S. 1988) ( مدارس may regulate school-sponsored speech to serve pedagogical concerns)
- Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (U.S. 2007) (school can regulate speech at school-sponsored events)
- Peck ex rel. Peck v. Baldwinsville Cent. Sch. Dist., 426 F.3d 617 (2d Cir. 2005) (non-public forum distinctions and applicability of Hazelwood)
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (U.S. 1995) (content discrimination concepts in religious speech)
- Bronx Household of Faith v. Bd. of Educ., 650 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2011) (speech with no secular analogue may be excluded; context for religious speech)