Defoe v. Spiva - 625 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 2010)

Rule:

In considering a summary judgment motion, all inferences to be drawn from the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. A judge's role is not to weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, or determine the truth of the matter.

Facts:

Plaintiff Tom Defoe, a minor by and through his parent and guardian, Plaintiff Phil Defoe, and Plaintiff Phil Defoe, sued defendants, Sid Spiva, Merl Krull, Greg Deal, V.L. Stonecipher, John Burrell, and the Anderson County, Tennessee School Board, school board and school officials, alleging that a ban on displays of the Confederate flag in schools violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The school district's code of student conduct banned clothing and accessories that displayed racial or ethnic slurs or symbols, including displays of the Confederate flag. Plaintiff student was suspended for refusing to comply with the dress code. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants. On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that the district court erroneously granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants based on the court's conclusions that the evidence demonstrated that school officials banned displays of the Confederate flag based on a reasonable forecast that those displays would substantially disrupt or materially interfere with the school environment.

Issue:

Did the district court err in granting the summary judgments for defendants?

Answer:

No. The district court's judgment was affirmed.

Conclusion:

The court held that although the opinion announcing the district court's decision found that the school officials reasonably forecast that permitting displays of the Confederate flag would substantially disrupt the school environment, a majority of the court of appeals panel held in a concurring opinion that it was not necessary or advisable to apply the Tinker standard requiring a showing of a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption. The court ruled that school officials could place reasonable and even-handed limits on speech that the officials reasonably viewed as being racially hostile without having to show that such speech would result in disturbances. A reasonable interpretation of clothing displaying the Confederate flag was that it conveyed racial hostility or contempt, regardless of the wearer's subjective intent.