Zamecnik v. Indian Prairie School Dist. No. 204, 636 F.3d 874

Background

Two high school students sued Indian Prairie School District for restricting their negative statements about homosexuality; district court denied injunctive relief at first.
On remand, the Seventh Circuit granted a preliminary injunction allowing Nuxoll to wear a Be Happy, Not Gay shirt during school hours; Zamecnik had graduated by then.
During Day of Silence and Day of Truth events, the school banned the slogan as a violation of a rule against derogatory comments about protected classes.
A permanent injunction later broadened relief to any student and to clothing or personal items, not limited to a T-shirt.
Plaintiffs obtained summary judgment on liability; the court awarded $25 damages to each plaintiff for constitutional injury, and entered the permanent injunction.
The school argued mootness on graduation and challenged the admissibility of an expert report; the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the school’s ban violate the First Amendment?	Zamecnik and Nuxoll contend the slogan is protected speech not constituting substantial disruption.	The school argues it may regulate derogatory speech to prevent disruption and harassment.	Yes; ban violated First Amendment; speech not fighting words and did not cause substantial disruption.
May harassment evidence justify suppressing the speech under a heckler's veto?	Harassment of homosexual students does not justify restricting the speaker's rights.	Harassment evidence supports disruption and may justify prohibiting the slogan.	No; heckler's veto evidence cannot justify suppression of protected speech.
Was the expert testimony under Rule 702 properly admitted or excluded?	Expert shows risk and insidiousness of the slogan's impact on students.	Expert testimony provides foundational insight into potential disruption.	Excluded; Russell's report failed to show adequate facts, methodology, or reliability under Rule 702.
Is the injunction moot given graduation, and can an injunction extend to nonparties?	Injunction remains meaningful because it covers all students and nonparties; mootness fails.	Graduation ends the practical effect; relief should not apply off campus or to nonparties.	Not moot; broad injunction in favor of all students remains enforceable against the school.
Were damages and relief appropriate after a constitutional violation?	Nominal damages reflect violation and vindicate rights.	Damages should reflect minimal or no monetary relief given school interests.	Yes; the modest $25 damages were justified and the permanent injunction was proper.

Key Cases Cited

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (Supreme Court 1942) (fighting words doctrine; unprotected if likely to provoke violence)
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (Supreme Court 1992) (content-based restrictions on fighting words limit speech protection)
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (Supreme Court 1969) (student speech can be restricted only if substantial disruption occurs)
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (Supreme Court 1986) (school can regulate lewd speech in the campus context)
Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (Supreme Court 2007) (schools may regulate student speech promoting illegal drug use)
Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (Supreme Court 1966) (heckler's veto concerns)
Hedges v. Wauconda Community Unit School Dist. No. 118, 9 F.3d 1295 (7th Cir. 1993) (heckler's veto analysis in school speech cases)
Sypniewski v. Warren Hills Regional Bd. of Education, 307 F.3d 243 (3d Cir. 2002) (speech harassment and disruption standard in schools)
Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001) (limits of harassment-based regulation of speech in schools)
Canady v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 240 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2001) (lewd or plainly offensive speech and school authority)
Walker-Serrano ex rel. Walker v. Leonard, 325 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 2003) (context of student speech and school regulation)
LaVine v. Blaine School District, 257 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2001) (student speech and school disciplinary rules)
Defoe ex rel. Defoe v. Spiva, 625 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 2010) (display of symbols and disruption considerations in schools)
Scott v. School Board of Alachua County, 324 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2003) (school dress-code and speech cases)
West v. Derby Unified School Dist. No. 260, 206 F.3d 1358 (10th Cir. 2000) (evaluating school speech restrictions and disruption)