Kountze Independent School District v. Coti Matthews, on Behalf of Her Minor Child MacY Matthews
09-13-00251-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 28, 2017Background
- Kountze ISD prohibited cheerleaders from including religious messages on pregame "run-through" banners; cheerleaders (through parents) sued claiming free-speech violations.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment for cheerleaders, implicitly denying Kountze ISD’s plea to the jurisdiction; ISD appealed interlocutory under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §51.014(a)(8).
- Banners: hand-painted by cheerleaders (using private funds, after school), displayed briefly on the school field, then destroyed when players ran through them; sponsors (school employees) reviewed/approved banners to exclude obscene/offensive content.
- Central legal question: whether banners constitute government speech, school-sponsored speech, or private student speech —because if government speech, governmental immunity bars the suit.
- Court applied the Summum/Walker three-factor government-speech test (history of use, reasonable observer attribution, government control) and Hazelwood/Tinker frameworks for school speech analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether banners are government speech | Banners are student-selected messages; thus private student speech | Banners are produced in school context, supervised by sponsors and displayed at school events, so government speech | Not government speech — three-factor test weighs against government control or historical governmental use |
| Whether banners are school-sponsored speech (Hazelwood) | Banners are student-initiated, extracurricular, and not curricular — so not school-sponsored | Event is school-sponsored, performed by official cheer squad under supervision, so Hazelwood applies | Not school-sponsored speech: lacks curricular/pedagogical purpose and imprimatur sufficient for Hazelwood control |
| If private speech, what standard applies (forum/Tinker) | Cheerleaders: private student speech entitled to Tinker protection unless substantial disruption | ISD: non-public school forum allows reasonable restrictions; approval practice shows control | Characterized as private student speech in non-public forum; Tinker standard applies and ISD showed no disruption evidence |
| Standing of individual cheerleaders to sue | Individual cheerleaders were personally aggrieved and represented by next friends (parents) | ISD argued the speech belonged to the squad, so absent whole-squad plaintiffs, individuals lack standing | Individual minor cheerleaders have standing (personal injury to their free-speech rights; next friends give capacity) |
Key Cases Cited
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (students retain First Amendment rights at school; restrictions only for substantial disruption)
- Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (school-sponsored curricular speech may be regulated for legitimate pedagogical reasons)
- Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (student-led, school-presented prayers can constitute school/state endorsement)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (government speech doctrine — government control/attribution factors)
- Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2239 (government-speech factors applied to specialty license plates)
- Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass'n, 544 U.S. 550 (government effectively-controlled promotional messages constitute government speech)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (public-employee speech pursuant to duties is not protected)
- Texas Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (pleader must affirmatively demonstrate waiver of governmental immunity and jurisdiction)