William Brinsdon v. McAllen Independent Sch Dist, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11819

In Sept. 2011, a Spanish III teacher at a McAllen, TX public high school assigned students to memorize and recite (and mimic the ceremony for) the Mexican Pledge of Allegiance and sing the Mexican National Anthem as a cultural/language exercise.
Student Brenda Brinsdon objected to reciting the Mexican pledge (she did not object to singing the anthem); she obtained an alternative written assignment and received a lower grade than classmates.
Brinsdon’s father secretly recorded the class (a “spy pen”), posted the video to media outlets, and the story generated national publicity and hostile communications to the school.
After publicity and alleged classroom disruptions, Brinsdon was removed from the Spanish class in October and completed the course by self-study. She later graduated.
Brinsdon sued the teacher (Santos), the principal (Cavazos), and the school district under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for compelled speech, retaliation, and equal protection; district court granted qualified immunity to individuals in part, entered JMOL for the District, and dismissed equitable claims as moot.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit held equitable relief moot (Brinsdon graduated), affirmed JMOL for the District (no municipal policy/knowledge), and affirmed qualified immunity for the individual defendants on compelled-speech and retaliation claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of equitable relief	Graduation does not moot claims or equitable relief should survive	Graduation renders equitable claims moot; only nominal damages remain	Equitable claims moot; only nominal damages (not barred) survive
Municipal liability under §1983	District delegated policymaking to principal; long-standing assignment shows custom/policy	No official policy, no delegation to principal, no persistent custom or constructive knowledge	JMOL for District affirmed — no policymaker/policy/causal custom shown
Compelled speech (forced recitation of pledge)	Recitation (even simulated) compelled student speech in violation of First Amendment	Assignment was pedagogical/cultural and non-operative; no evidence of intent to inculcate foreign allegiance	Qualified immunity for teacher and principal — not clearly established that their conduct violated First Amendment under these facts
Retaliation / removal from class	Removal was retaliation for Brinsdon’s protected speech (objection and publicity)	Removal was response to classroom disruption and to unauthorized secret recording and dissemination; discipline justified	Qualified immunity for individuals affirmed — removal tied to disruption from secret video, not clearly established retaliation

West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (state cannot compel pledge or force belief)
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (state cannot require citizens to carry ideological message)
Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (student speech protected unless material/substantial disruption)
Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (student speech / damages issues)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified-immunity analysis sequencing)
Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (public-concern speech and First Amendment context)
Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567 (municipal liability elements)
Morgan v. Swanson, 659 F.3d 359 (qualified immunity in school context)
Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, 356 F.3d 1277 (compelled curricular recitation not per se First Amendment violation)
Brown v. Li, 308 F.3d 939 (academic assignments may require adopting others’ words for pedagogy)
Hedges v. Wauconda Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 118, 9 F.3d 1295 (limitations on students’ compelled adoption of others’ words)