Johnson v. Poway Unified School District
658 F.3d 954
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Bradley Johnson, a high school calculus teacher, displayed large banners in his classroom containing religious phrases.
- Westview High School principal Dawn Kastner and the Poway Unified School District objected, suggesting the banners promoted sectarian views.
- The district ordered Johnson to remove the banners and advised contextualizing the quotes under district policy and California law.
- Johnson sued in federal court alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations and state-law claims; the district court granted summary judgment for Johnson.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit applied a Pickering-based analysis for government employee speech rather than a forum-based approach.
- The court ultimately reversed, ruling Poway did not violate Johnson’s rights and remanded to enter judgment in Poway’s favor on all federal and state claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pickering governs in-school teacher speech | Johnson argues for forum-based, not Pickering, review. | Poway advocates Pickering-based speech analysis as appropriate. | Pickering-based analysis applies; district court erred. |
| Whether Johnson spoke as a private citizen or public employee | Johnson acted as a citizen in classroom display. | Johnson spoke as a teacher in his official role. | Johnson spoke as a government employee; government may regulate. |
| Whether removal of banners violated the Establishment Clause | Poway’s actions endorsed religion by suppressing Judeo-Christian speech while allowing other displays. | Removal served secular, neutral aims to avoid religious endorsement. | Poway did not violate the Establishment Clause; summary judgment in Poway's favor appropriate. |
| Whether Johnson’s equal protection rights were violated | Selective treatment of banners constitutes hostility to religious speech. | Speech that owes its existence to government cannot support private-equal protection claims. | No equal protection violation; government speech doctrine controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (U.S. 1995) (government speech can be regulated to avoid distortion)
- Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balancing employee speech vs. employer interests)
- Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2009) (adopted five-step test for government employee speech)
- Ceballos v. Cal. Bd. of Educ., 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (speech must not be made pursuant to duties as employee)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (official duties limit employee speech)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 129 S. Ct. 1125 (U.S. 2009) (government speech and neutrality principles in Establishment Clause context)
- Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (U.S. 2005) (context matters for religious symbols in public spaces)