Midwest Education Law

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit today affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor a school district and against tenth grade student who was suspended for sending "instant messages" to various friends in which the plaintiff talked about bringing a gun to school and committing acts of violence.  The case, D.J.M. v.  Hannibal Public School Dist., can be found here. 

The messages in question were sent by DJM through his home computer to various friends (who were also using their home computers), including messages to a female student, CM. Although CM initially believed DJM to be joking, she became concerned at the increasingly threatening nature of DJM's messages and alerted a school administrator, who in turn contacted police. DJM was taken into juvenile custody and later suspended for the balance of the school year.  DJM and his parents sued the School District under Section 1983, alleging that the School District had violated the First Amendment because the instant messages in question were not "school speech."

Rejecting this claim, the court held that true threats are not protected by the First Amendment and here the school district was given enough information that it reasonably feared DJM had access to a handgun and was thinking about shooting specific classmates.  In light of the district's obligation to protect its students and reasonable concerns created by other school shooting incidents, the district did not violate DJM's First Amendment rights by notifying the police about the messages and subsequently suspending him after he was placed in juvenile detention.  The action was also appropriate under the school's authority to prevent a "substantial disruption" of school activities.  The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding DJM's state law claim for administrative relief to Missouri state court after it dismissed his Section 1983 claims.

Yesterday, in a closely divided 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled for the first time that police must take into account a child's age in deciding whether to give a “Miranda warning” advising them of their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent.  You can find the Court's opinion in J.D.B. v. North Carolina here.Speaking for the majority, Justice Sotomayor stressed that children, particularly in the school setting, “will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances” would not. The Court noted that a student required by law to attend school, and who is subject to disciplinary action for disobedience, might well believe that he or she must answer all police questions.

The dissenting opinion complained that the Court is abandoning the objective,bright-line rule of Miranda, which is undeniably true.  Yet,because the Court gave virtually no guidance as to at what age Miranda warnings should be given or precisely how an investigating officer should factor in age when making this decision, the practical effect may be that, out of an abundance of caution, law enforcement will give warnings to anyone who doesn’t appear close to eighteen years of age.

A Kansas high school has attracted the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union after banning a controversial bracelet and suspending a student who violated the ban.  After getting complaints, Junction City High School’s principal recently told students not to wear the bracelets, which read “I (heart) boobies!”  A breast cancer awareness foundation produces the bracelets, as well as t-shirts with the same slogan.  While the charity has hoped to utilize the eye-catching slogan to encourage involvement by teenagers, the bracelets  have been banned at multiple schools across the country.  The Junction City student who refused to take off his bracelet was suspended for two days.

On Wednesday, the ACLU sent the high school a letter threatening legal action, alleging a violation of the student’s First Amendment rights.  The threat is probably not an empty one – the ACLU filed suit in Easton, Pennsylvania last month against a school district that suspended two students for wearing the same bracelets despite a ban.  The following link provides the full story: http://tinyurl.com/2ecz4n2

If your encounters with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights ("OCR") have been more frequent lately, you're not alone.  After reviewing data obtained under FOIA, the Associated Press reports that OCR received nearly 7,000 complaints this fiscal year, representing an 11% increase over last year.  Common allegations include discipline disparities based on race (particularly in connection with zero-tolerance policies), discrimination against students with disabilities, concerns regarding food allergies and intolerances and mistreatment of English language learners. 

In the article, OCR acknowledges that most school officials do not intentionally discriminate against students.  Rather, problems arise when school officials misunderstand their responsibilities under the non-discrimination statutes enforced by OCR.  This is a timely reminder that unintentional disparities are also unlawful and great care should be taken to assure complete compliance with all non-discrimination policies and statutes.  Administrators and teachers alike should always be familiar with their obligations under these authorities and conscious of good faith behavior which may inadvertently lead to discriminatory results. 

As Homecoming season continues, school districts may want to re-examine their alcohol and drug policies for sufficient clarity.  Unless they are carefully drafted, such policies may be vulnerable to challenge.  For example, an Alabama court recently found a school district’s alcohol and drug policy to be too vague to pass the court’s muster.  The Monroe County Board of Education’s policy stated that “no student shall carry, possess, or use drugs, drug paraphernalia, or alcohol” at a school function.  Pursuant to this policy, Excel High School suspended a student who came to the school’s prom last spring after having ingested alcohol.  The student did not have any alcohol on his person at the dance.

The Monroe County Board of Education disciplined the student because it interpreted its policy to include a student who has used alcohol shortly before attending school or a school-sponsored function or who is under the influence of alcohol while at school or at a school-sponsored function.  But an Alabama court disagreed.  The court concluded that the policy was unconstitutionally vague because it was unclear whether any student should have known that drinking alcohol before arriving at the prom constituted “use” of alcohol at a school function, which would trigger disciplinary measures.  The court struck down the policy and reinstated the student at his high school.