B.H. v. Easton Area Sch. Dist.

Citation725 F.3d 293
Decision Date05 August 2013
Docket NumberNo. 11–2067.,11–2067.
PartiesB.H., a Minor, by and through her Mother; Jennifer HAWK; K.M., a Minor by and through her Mother; Amy McDonald–Martinez v. EASTON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Keely J. Collins, John E. Freund, III [argued], Jeffrey T. Tucker, King, Spry, Herman, Freund & Faul, Bethlehem, PA, for Appellant.

Seth F. Kreimer, University of Pennsylvania School of Law, Mary Catherine Roper [argued], American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Molly M. Tack–Hooper, Berger & Montague, Philadelphia, PA, Witold J. Walczak, American Civil Liberties Union, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellees.

Sean A. Fields, Pennsylvania School Boards Association, Mechanicsburg, PA, for Amicus Appellant.

Rory Wicks, Gary L. Sirota, Encinitas, CA, Amy R. Arroyo, Carlsbad, CA, Frank D. LoMonte, Laura Napoli, Student Press Law Center, Arlington, VA, Wilson M. Brown, III, Kathryn E. Deal, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Wayne Pollock, Dechert LLP, Terry L. Fromson, Carol E. Tracey, Women's Law Project, David L. Cohen, Philadelphia, PA, for Amici Appellees.

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, SCIRICA, RENDELL, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR., VANASKIE, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

SMITH, Circuit Judge, with whom McKEE, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, SCIRICA, RENDELL, AMBRO, FUENTES, FISHER, and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges join.

Once again, we are asked to find the balance between a student's right to free speech and a school's need to control its educational environment. In this case, two middle-school students purchased bracelets bearing the slogan “I > boobies! (KEEP A BREAST) as part of a nationally recognized breast-cancer-awareness campaign. The Easton Area School District banned the bracelets, relying on its authority under Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 106 S.Ct. 3159, 92 L.Ed.2d 549 (1986), to restrict vulgar, lewd, profane, or plainly offensive speech, and its authority under Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969), to restrict speech that is reasonably expected to substantially disrupt the school. The District Court held that the ban violated the students' rights to free speech and issued a preliminary injunction against the ban.

We agree with the District Court that neither Fraser nor Tinker can sustain the bracelet ban. The scope of a school's authority to restrict lewd, vulgar, profane, or plainly offensive speech under Fraser is a novel question left open by the Supreme Court, and one which we must now resolve. We hold that Fraser, as modified by the Supreme Court's later reasoning in Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 127 S.Ct. 2618, 168 L.Ed.2d 290 (2007), sets up the following framework: (1) plainly lewd speech, which offends for the same reasons obscenity offends, may be categorically restricted regardless of whether it comments on political or social issues, (2) speech that does not rise to the level of plainly lewd but that a reasonable observer could interpret as lewd may be categorically restricted as long as it cannot plausibly be interpreted as commenting on political or social issues, and (3) speech that does not rise to the level of plainly lewd and that could plausibly be interpreted as commenting on political or social issues may not be categorically restricted. Because the bracelets here are not plainly lewd and because they comment on a social issue, they may not be categorically banned under Fraser. The School District has also failed to show that the bracelets threatened to substantially disrupt the school under Tinker. We will therefore affirm the District Court.

I.
A. Factual background

As a “leading youth focused global breast cancer organization,” the Keep A Breast Foundation tries to educate thirteen- to thirty-year-old women about breast cancer. Br. of Amicus Curiae KABF at 13. To that end, it often partners with other merchants to co-brand products that raise awareness. And because it believes that young women's “negative body image[s] seriously inhibit their awareness of breast cancer, the Foundation's products often “seek[ ] to reduce the stigma by speaking to young people in a voice they can relate to.” Id. at 14–15. If young women see such awareness projects and products as cool and trendy, the thinking goes, then they will be more willing to talk about breast cancer openly.

To “start a conversation about that taboo in a light-hearted way” and to break down inhibitions keeping young women from performing self-examinations, the Foundation began its “I > Boobies!” initiative. Id. at 20–21. Part of the campaign included selling silicone bracelets of assorted colors emblazoned with “I > Boobies! (KEEP A BREAST) and “check y> urself! (KEEP A BREAST).” Id. at 21–22. The Foundation's website address (www. keep- a- breast. org) and motto (“art. education. awareness. action.”) appear on the inside of the bracelet. Id.

As intended, the “I > Boobies” initiative was a hit with young women, quickly becoming one of the Foundation's “most successful and high profile educational campaigns.” Id. at 20–21. Two of the young women drawn to the bracelets were middle-school students B.H. and K.M. They purchased the bracelets with their mothers before the 20102011 school year—B.H. because she saw “a lot of [her] friends wearing” the bracelets and wanted to learn about them, and K.M. because of the bracelet's popularity and awareness message. App. 72, 92, 106, 442.

But the bracelets were more than just a new fashion trend. K.M.'s purchase prompted her to become educated about breast cancer in young women. The girls wore their bracelets both to commemorate friends and relatives who had suffered from breast cancer and to promote awareness among their friends. Indeed, their bracelets started conversations about breast cancer and did so far more effectively than the more-traditional pink ribbon. App. 73–74. That made sense to B.H., who observed that “no one really notices” the pink ribbon, whereas the “bracelets are new and ... more appealing to teenagers.” App. 74.

B.H., K.M., and three other students wore the “I > boobies! (KEEP A BREAST) bracelets at Easton Area Middle School during the 20102011 school year. A few teachers, after observing the students wear the bracelets every day for several weeks, considered whether they should take action. The teachers' responses varied: One found the bracelets offensive because they trivialized breast cancer. Others feared that the bracelets might lead to offensive comments or invite inappropriate touching. But school administrators also believed that middle-school boys did not need the bracelets as an excuse to make sexual statements or to engage in inappropriate touching. See, e.g., Viglianti Test., App. 196, 198 (testifying that such incidents “happened before the bracelets” and were “going to happen after the bracelets” because “sexual curiosity between boys and girls in the middle school is ... a natural and continuing thing”).

In mid- to late September, four or five teachers asked the eighth-grade assistant principal, Amy Braxmeier, whether they should require students to remove the bracelets. The seventh-grade assistant principal, Anthony Viglianti, told the teachers that they should ask students to remove “wristbands that have the word ‘boobie’ written on them,” App. 343, even though there were no reports that the bracelets had caused any in-school disruptions or inappropriate comments.1

With Breast Cancer Awareness Month approaching in October, school administrators anticipated that the “I > boobies! (KEEP A BREAST) bracelets might reappear.2 The school was scheduled to observe Breast Cancer Awareness Month on October 28, so the day before, administrators publicly announced, for the first time, the ban on bracelets containing the word “boobies.” Using the word “boobies” in his announcement, Viglianti notified students of the ban over the public-address system, and a student did the same on the school's television station. The Middle School still encouraged students to wear the traditional pink, and it provided teachers who donated to Susan G. Komen for the Cure with either a pin bearing the slogan “Passionately Pink for the Cure” or a T-shirt reading “Real Rovers Wear Pink.”

Later that day, a school security guard noticed B.H. wearing an “I >>>> boobies! (KEEP A BREAST) bracelet and ordered her to remove it. B.H. refused. After meeting with Braxmeier, B.H. relented, removed her bracelet, and returned to lunch. No disruption occurred at any time that day.

The following day, B.H. and K.M. each wore their “I > boobies! (KEEP A BREAST) bracelets to observe the Middle School's Breast Cancer Awareness Day. The day was uneventful—until lunchtime. Once in the cafeteria, both girls were instructed by a school security guard to remove their bracelets. Both girls refused. Hearing this encounter, another girl, R.T., stood up and similarly refused to take off her bracelet. Confronted by this act of solidarity, the security guard permitted the girls to finish eating their lunches before escorting them to Braxmeier's office. Again, the girls' actions caused no disruption in the cafeteria, though R.T. told Braxmeier that one boy had immaturely commented either that he also “love[d] boobies” or that he “love [d] her boobies.”

Braxmeier spoke to all three girls, and R.T. agreed to remove her bracelet. B.H. and K.M. stood firm, however, citing their rights to freedom of speech. The Middle School administrators were having none of it. They punished B.H. and K.M. by giving each of them one and a half days of in-school suspension and by forbidding them from attending the Winter Ball. The administrators notified the girls' families, explaining only that B.H. and K.M....

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • Doe v. Hopkinton Pub. Sch., CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-11384-WGY
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 22 Septiembre 2020
    ...placed the burden on school officials to justify restrictions on student speech. Id. at 27 (citing B.H. ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area Sch. Dist., 725 F.3d 293, 321 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc); Bell v. Itawamba Cnty. Sch. Bd., 799 F.3d 379, 398 (5th Cir. 2015) ; Hardwick v. Heyward, 711 F.3d 426,......
  • Waln v. Dysart Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • 28 Febrero 2021
    ...concerns." Corder v. Lewis Palmer Sch. Dist. No. 38 , 566 F.3d 1219, 1230 (10th Cir. 2009). See also B.H. ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area Sch. Dist. , 725 F.3d 293, 304 (3d Cir. 2013). The purpose served by the forum at issue in this matter, i.e., a high school graduation ceremony, was to "hono......
  • Moore v. Solanco Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 10 Julio 2020
    ......of Educ. , 526 U.S. 629, 652, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999) ; Saxe v. State Coll. Area Sch. Dist. , 240 F.3d 200, 205-06 and n.5 (3d Cir. 2001) (holding that the reasoning in Davis , ...the rights of others.’ " B.H. ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area Sch. Dist. , 725 F.3d 293, 303-04 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Davis , 526 U.S. at 652, 119 S.Ct. ......
  • B.L. by and through Levy v. Mahanoy Area School District
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • 21 Marzo 2019
    ...J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist. , 650 F.3d 915, 922-23 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc); see B.H. v. Easton Area Sch. Dist. , 725 F.3d 293, 321-22 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc) ("Student expression may not be suppressed simply because it gives rise to some slight, easily overlooked disru......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • PUT MAHANOY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS: A CLOSER LOOK AT WHEN SCHOOLS CAN REGULATE ONLINE STUDENT SPEECH.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 98 No. 2, December 2022
    • 1 Diciembre 2022
    ...disruption test and finding that a ban on gay pride t-shirts at school violated the First Amendment); B.H. v. Easton Area Sch. Dist., 725 F.3d 293, 298 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc) (holding that a ban on breast cancer awareness bracelets that say "I (62) DRIVER, supra note 25, at (63) Brief of ......
  • For Whom the Bell Tolls: Bell v. Itawamba Targets Rap Music and Students' Free Speech Rights
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 71-6, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...608, 620-21 (5th Cir. 2004); Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 422, 424 (2007) (Alito, J., concurring); B.H. v. Easton Area Sch. Dist., 725 F.3d 293, 314 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc).189. Edmunds, supra note 149, at 1022 ("There is a plethora of case law interpreting the 'substantial disruption......
  • Freedom of Expression. What Does Your Body Say About You? Not Enough, the Ninth Circuit Says
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Litigation No. 46-3, April 2020
    • 1 Abril 2020
    ...not be banned by the school district because the bracelets commented on a social issue. B.H. ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area Sch. Dist. , 725 F.3d 293 (3d Cir. 2013). Even the lack of clothing, in the right circumstances, will move the Court’s First Amendment needle to a finding of “expressive ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT