FREE SPEECH, & RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WIN IN A WASHINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOL


tolerance-meme-bumper-sticker-coexist-facebook-article-659x412

Students at a Washington state high school will be allowed to hand out non-student-produced materials, after a federal judge ruled that banning distribution of non-original literature is unconstitutional. What are we talking about here? Religious Liberty. 

 

The Case:

Michael Leal, a senior at Cascade High School, filed a lawsuit on November 2014 against Everett Public Schools after being asked to stop handing out religious material on campus by school administrators.

In his original complaint, Leal alleged that when preaching about his Christian faith and handing out written materials in early September 2014 during lunch, Cascade Principal Cathy Woods and Vice Principal Laura Phillips pulled him aside after the break and told him he “would get in trouble” if he continued to distribute materials.

After additional similar incidents, Leal was given a notice of disciplinary action and suspended from school for two days in early October due to what the school described as “boisterous conduct of religious material [that] impinged on rights of other students and failure to comply to multiple administrative requests to stop activity.”

Leal was suspended once again a week later after handing out material at an after-school volleyball game for not complying with the guidelines the school laid out. After exchanging legal correspondence with the school district, in which Leal’s attorneys asked for his record to be cleared in regards to preaching and permission to preach during non-instructional time, a dispute over school policies emerged.

School policies in effect at the time gave the principal authority to “monitor student verbal expression,” and to permit the on-campus distribution of only student-produced materials, at school entrances before and after school.

Leal’s request for a preliminary injunction, which asked to restrain school administrators from interfering with Leal’s preaching and distribution of religious material during non-instructional time, was denied by U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly in February, a precursor to the more recent ruling.

The judge

The judge wrote in the February opinion that he did not view the Supreme Court’s Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District precedent as applying to a “viewpoint-neutral” regulation on speech, noting that the distribution rule applied to publications regardless of viewpoint.

“The Supreme Court has never held that Tinker is the appropriate analytical framework for the consideration of viewpoint-neutral regulations,” Zilly wrote. “While Tinker is appropriately applied to those restrictions aimed at suppressing student expression or a particular viewpoint, a lower standard is demanded where this is not the case.”

While Zilly did not grant the preliminary injunction in February, he did express concerns about the limits on non-original materials. The judge wrote that he was “troubled by the fact that the School District’s policy would prohibit students from passing out materials such as the Constitution,” but concluded that a preference for student-generated literature “may serve an important educational goal and be upheld under the First Amendment.”

After the February ruling, Zilly received additional briefing that resulted in a final ruling walking back part of the initial ruling, according to Kevin Snider, Leal’s attorney. Zilly found board policies to be unconstitutional in part, saying students do not need to write original material to pass it out on campus.

“The judge was very troubled by the original authorship rule, so it wasn’t a complete shock that he reversed himself on that,” Snider said. “The implications would be that you ironically couldn’t pass out the First Amendment because you didn’t write it yourself. So I think that’s the reason he changed courses on that.”

The Conclusion

The school district expressed satisfaction with the ruling, saying that the only change between the preliminary injunction ruling and the ruling from the bench was that students can pass out material that they did not write or produce. In other words this was a win for FREE SPEECH, since it was ruled the students can pass out material they did not write themselves, and the case was brought by Student Press Law Center in association with Liberty Counsel

*** SHARE this page on Facebook, Twitter, Email and other social media with the share tools below ***

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.