Curry v. Hensiner - 513 F.3d 570 (6th Cir. 2008)

Rule:

In order to determine whether the right to freedom of speech was violated in a school environment, the court must first decide the framework under which the student's speech should be analyzed. If the expression was private expression which just happened to occur at school, the court looks to Tinker, which noted that private expression may be restricted only upon a showing that such expression would substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students. However, when the expression is school-sponsored speech, such as a school newspaper, or speech made as part of a school's curriculum, schools are afforded greater latitude to restrict the speech. Under Hazelwood, educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. This standard applies when students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive the expression to bear the imprimatur of the school. These activities may fairly be characterized as part of the school curriculum, whether or not they occur in a traditional classroom setting, so long as they are supervised by faculty members and designed to impart particular knowledge or skills to student participants and audiences.

Facts:

Plaintiff Joel Curry and his parents filed suit against the School District of Saginaw, Michigan, and Irene Hensinger, the principal of the school Joel attended, alleging that Joel's constitutional rights were abridged when Principal Hensinger did not allow Joel to sell pipe-cleaner candy canes if a card bearing a religious message was attached. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all parties, reasoning that no violation of Joel's First Amendment right could be attributed to the school district. The district court further held that while Principal Hensinger has abridged plaintiff’s constitutional right to freedom of speech, the principal enjoyed qualified immunity from liability. On appeal, plaintiff contended that the district court erred in its application of qualified immunity to Principal Hensinger. 

Issue:

1. Did the school principal abridge plaintiff’s constitutional right to freedom of speech? 
2. Did the principal enjoy qualified immunity from liability? 

Answer:

1) No. 2) The court did not answer, as the school principal did not abridge plaintiff’s constitutional right.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the principal did not violate a constitutional right enjoyed by the student. Applying the doctrine enunciated in Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 273, 108 S. Ct. 562, 98 L. Ed. 2d 592 (1988), the Court determined that the principal's desire to avoid having a curricular event offend other children or their parents and to avoid subjecting young children to an unsolicited religious promotional message that might conflict with what they were taught at home qualified as a valid educational purpose. Thus, the principal's determination that the religious card should not be permitted was the product of her reasonable evaluation of legitimate pedagogical concerns and fell within her discretion as a school administrator.