Taylor v. Roswell Independent School District
713 F.3d 25
10th Cir.2013Background
- High school students in Roswell, NM (Relentless) distributed various religious items on campus without prior approval, including 2,500 rubber fetus dolls.
- Roswell District had Policy 7110 (preapproval) and an unwritten practice; in May 2010 Policy 5195 formalized the non-school literature distribution rules.
- Dolls were distributed at Goddard and Roswell High; dolls caused disruptions (dismembered parts, property damage, classroom disturbance).
- Administrators halted the large distribution; later, some smaller, non-doll distributions continued with varying approval.
- Plaintiffs filed suit alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations and facial challenges to preapproval policies; district court granted summary judgment.
- On appeal, court held the as-applied free speech claim fails, facial challenge to Policy 5195 fails as to preapproval, and free exercise and equal protection claims fail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the district's preapproval policy constitutionally regulate student speech? | Relentless argues Policy 5195 is a prior restraint and vague. | District contends policy includes safeguards and limits discretion, tailored to school context. | Policy 5195 not unconstitutional as a prior restraint. |
| Did stopping the rubber fetus distribution violate the Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights? | Disallowing mass distribution of private speech violated Tinker. | Forecast of substantial disruption justified restriction under Tinker. | No violation; disruption forecast was reasonable and materialized. |
| Is the facial challenge to Policy 5195 under vagueness/overbreadth valid? | Policy is vague and overbroad, enabling arbitrary enforcement. | Policy provides clear standards and safeguards appropriate for schools. | Not unconstitutionally vague; overbreadth not adequately raised. |
| Does District's action burden Plaintiffs' free exercise rights under strict scrutiny or rational basis? | Disparate treatment of religious expression shows targeting of religion. | Policy neutral and neutrally applied; actions are neutral and rationally related to school interests. | Rational basis review; actions persist as neutral and generally applicable. |
| Does the District violate equal protection by treating Relentless differently from similarly situated students? | Non-Relentless Valentine’s items allowed—discrimination against Relentless. | Distributions were not similarly situated in kind or scale; other Relentless distributions occurred. | No equal protection violation; no similarly situated comparators. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist., 393 F.2d 503 (U.S. 1969) (disruption-based standard for private student speech)
- Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (U.S. 1988) (school-sponsored speech and editorial control)
- Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (U.S. 1986) (obscene or lewd student speech allows more control)
- Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness in school context; disruption considerations)
- Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1992) (procedural safeguards in preassignment licensing to prevent viewpoint discrimination)
- Bystrom ex rel. Bystrom v. Fridley High School, 822 F.2d 747 (8th Cir. 1987) (upheld preapproval with safeguards; caution against blanket religious bans)
- Kinsland v. M.A.L. ex rel. M.L., 543 F.3d 841 (6th Cir. 2008) (preapproval policy with safeguards; disallows arbitrary censorship)
- Muller ex rel. Muller v. Jefferson Lighthouse Sch., 98 F.3d 1530 (7th Cir. 1996) (upheld preapproval policy with procedural safeguards in school setting)
- Hedges v. Wauconda Cmty. Utd. Sch. Dist. No. 118, 9 F.3d 1296 (7th Cir. 1993) (upheld preapproval policy excluding religious materials; remainder upheld)
- Jordan v. Pugh, 425 F.3d 820 (10th Cir. 2005) (overbreadth/vagueness standards considerations)