California Court Rules in Favor of Student’s Free Speech

A California appellate court has ruled in favor of a young student who painted a friend’s thumbprint with the phrase “Black Lives Matter” and added “Any Lives Matter” to a school picture, leading to disciplinary action against him.

Previously, a lower court had found in favor of Jesús Becerra, the principal at Viejo Elementary School in Mission Viejo, California.

The student, referred to as “BB” in court documents and identified as white, created a drawing of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 2021 after a class discussion about him and gifted it to his black classmate, “MC.”

After taking the picture home, MC’s mother expressed concerns to the school. BB’s mother, Chelsea Boyle, alleges that Becerra labeled the artwork as racist, compelled BB to apologize to MC, and placed him on a two-week suspension.

Boyle subsequently initiated legal action against the school, claiming that BB’s First Amendment rights had been violated.

The lower courts dismissed her claim, stating that the student’s speech was not protected and that black students had the right to be free from perceived harm.

However, the appellate court referenced the landmark case Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which established that high school students could protest the Vietnam War and indicated a potential shift in the interpretation of student speech rights.

The three-judge panel posed a pivotal question: to what extent does the First Amendment protect the speech of elementary school students? They stated that “the speech of elementary school students is protected by the First Amendment” and that age does play a role, although it should not solely dictate the outcome.

This panel argued that schools may only restrict student speech when necessary for safety and well-being, as suggested by Tinker. They concluded there were significant questions regarding material facts and remanded the case for further consideration.

U.S. District Judge David Carter, appointed by Bill Clinton, had noted that the implications of regulating speech differ significantly for younger students compared to high schoolers, who are closer to voting age and can engage in meaningful conversations about controversial topics.

Nevertheless, the appellate court suggested that age is an important but not definitive factor in First Amendment cases. They disagreed with the lower court’s assessment that the artwork fell outside constitutional protections.

Boyle celebrated the appellate court’s decision, viewing it as a win for her daughter and others. She commented on Instagram, “This isn’t just a victory for my daughter; it strengthens constitutional protections for students nationwide. After all… there is no age limit in the Constitution.”

Her attorney, Caleb Trotter from the Pacific Legal Foundation, echoed this sentiment. “Today’s ruling clarifies that students don’t lose their rights simply because they’re young. The Constitution safeguards the rights to free expression for all students. No child should face punishment for spreading goodwill to a friend,” he stated.

The case is now set to return to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.