K.A. v. Pocono Mountain School District
3:11-cv-00417
M.D. Penn.Oct 20, 2011Background
- K.A. is a fifth-grade Christian student at Barrett Elementary Center, part of Pocono Mountain School District.
- In December 2010, K.A. sought to distribute a flyer inviting classmates to a church Christmas party via school mailboxes.
- School officials required district approval for non-school flyers; Superintendent cited Policy 913 to prohibit distribution.
- Policy 913 originally restricted non-school materials unless approved and focused on promoting student interests over outside groups.
- In August 2011, Policy 913 was revised to broadly ban non-school solicitation during the school day, though with some allowances for district activities; K.A. sued in 2011 seeking a preliminary injunction.
- Court Grants preliminary injunction finding the policies violate First Amendment protections for student personal speech under Tinker and related authorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Framework governing First Amendment analysis | Tinker controls student speech. | Nonpublic forum analysis governs when school limits materials. | Tinker applies; policies fail under Tinker. |
| Whether Policy 913, original or revised, passes Tinker scrutiny | Policies are overly broad and suppress permissible personal religious speech. | Policies regulate disruption and safety; content-neutral under Tinker constraints. | Both versions fail under Tinker and likely disrupt school operations. |
| Characterization of K.A.'s speech as personal | Speech is personal religious invitation to classmates. | Speech is solicitation from third-party organization; not personal. | Speech treated as personal; protected by First Amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (school's authority over student speech depends on disruption or rights of others)
- Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) (schools may regulate lewd or inappropriate student speech)
- Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) (school-sponsored speech may be regulated for pedagogical concerns)
- Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) (schools may restrict speech promoting illegal drug use at school events)
- U.S. v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990) (nonpublic forum principles apply to time/place/mocus restrictions)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (neutral, reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions in nonpublic forums)
- Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939) (definition of traditional public forums)
- Perry Educ. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (designated public forums; time/place/manner regulations valid if reasonable and viewpoint-neutral)
- U.S. Postal Serv. v. Council of Greenburgh, 453 U.S. 114 (1981) (non-public forum doctrine in publicly owned facilities)