Lexis Nexis - Case Brief

Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Law School Case Brief

Littlefield v. Forney Indep. Sch. Dist. - 268 F.3d 275 (5th Cir. 2001)


A court of appeals reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The moving party bears the burden of showing the district court that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. If the moving party fails to meet this initial burden, the motion must be denied, regardless of the nonmovant's response. If the movant does, however, meet this burden, the nonmovant must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. A dispute over a material fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. The substantive law determines which facts are material. 


The disputed uniform policy adopted by defendant Forney Independent School District ("District") required students to wear solid color polo-type shirts with collars, oxford-type shirts, or blouses with collars in one of four colors (white, yellow, red, or navy blue). Furthermore, the policy prohibited the wearing of certain clothing items. Plaintiffs, individual students and parents of students in the District, instituted a complaint in federal district court, against the District, superintendent, and members of the board of trustees (collectively, "defendants"), arguing that the policy acted as a form of "coerced speech" because it forced the students to convey a state-approved message that students did not wish to send, and that the policy acted as a "prior restraint" by preventing the students from freely expressing any message at all through their attire in violation of the First Amendment. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs appealed.


Was the District's uniform policy violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments?




The court of appeals held that the uniform policy did not violate the plaintiff students' First Amendment rights. According to the court, in the public school arena, the free expression rights of students were balanced by the corresponding interest of furthering the educational mission of schools. In the case at bar, and applying the doctrine enunciated in United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), the court held that when "speech" and "non-speech" elements were combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the non-speech element might justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms. Applying O'Brien to the challenged governmental policy at issue, the court ruled that the Uniform Policy would survive constitutional scrutiny if it was within the constitutional power of the government; if it furthered an important or substantial governmental interest; if the interest was unrelated to the suppression of student expression; and if the incidental restrictions on First Amendment activities were no more than is necessary to facilitate that interest. Taking off from this point, the court held that the Uniform Policy passed constitutional scrutiny under the O'Brien standard. The court reasoned that improving the educational process was undoubtedly an important and substantial interest of defendants. As to the parents' constitutional rights, the court held that the policy did not violate the their Fourteenth Amendment rights. According to the court, the policy was rationally related to the state's interest in fostering the education of its children and furthering the legitimate goals of improving student safety, decreasing socioeconomic tensions, increasing attendance, and reducing drop-out rates.

Access the full text case Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class