K. A. v. Pocono Mountain School Distric
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4877
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- K.A., a fifth-grade student, sought to distribute church-related Christmas party invitations at Barrett Elementary Center.
- School officials required approval for non-school flyers; denial was premised on Policy 913 authority of the superintendent.
- Policies 913 and 220 were revised during litigation, tightening control over nonschool materials and requiring approval for certain student-derived invitations.
- District Court applied the Tinker material disruption standard to K.A.'s religious invitation and preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the policy as applied.
- The district appeals, arguing forum analysis or Morse-based or Hazelwood-based reasoning should control; K.A. contends Tinker applies with elementary-age considerations.
- The Third Circuit ultimately affirms the preliminary injunction and finds policies overbroad as applied to the student invitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tinker governs elementary school speech here | K.A. argues Tinker applies with flexibility for age dynamics | School District contends limited disruption standard not required due to policy scope or forum analysis | Tinker applies with flexible elementary-age scope |
| Whether forum analysis or Tinker applies when outside organization distributes material | Speech is student-driven though from church-originated material | Outside-origin materials could implicate forum analysis | Tinker framework controls; forum analysis not adopted here |
| Whether Policies 220 and 913 are unconstitutional as applied | Policy restrictions chill student religious expression beyond permissible limits | Policies are content-neutral or justified by classroom order and safety concerns | Policies as applied are unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (student speech rights; disruption standard governs school regulation)
- Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) (school-sponsored speech; pedagogical concerns permit greater control)
- Fraser v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 478 U.S. 675 (1986) (manner of expression; lewd or vulgar speech restriction permissible)
- Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) (schools may restrict speech promoting illegal drug use)
- Saxe v. State Coll. Area Sch. Dist., 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001) (narrow exceptions to Tinker; disruption standard otherwise)
- J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 915 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc; Tinker framework applied to elementary context)
- Walz ex rel. Walz v. Egg Harbor Township Bd. of Educ., 342 F.3d 271 (3d Cir. 2003) (recognizes elementary-age considerations; age matters for control)
- Walker-Serrano ex rel. Walker v. Leonard, 325 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 2003) (Tinker flexibility for elementary speech; dicta on limits)
- Muller v. Jefferson Lighthouse Sch., 98 F.3d 1530 (7th Cir. 1996) (district court viewed as-applied; forum vs. Tinker debated)