Murphy v. Pocatello School Dist. No. 25

• Decision Date: 10 February 1971
• Docket Number: No. 10482,10482
• Citation: 94 Idaho 32,480 P.2d 878
• Parties: Chris MURPHY, an Infant, by John C. Murphy, his Guardian Ad Litem, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POCATELLO SCHOOL DISTRICT #25, Rulon M. Ellis, Superintendent Pocatello School District #25; and Lionel Bowser, Principal Highland High School, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 878

480 P.2d 878

94 Idaho 32

Chris MURPHY, an Infant, by John C. Murphy, his Guardian Ad Litem, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POCATELLO SCHOOL DISTRICT #25, Rulon M. Ellis, Superintendent Pocatello School District #25; and Lionel Bowser, Principal Highland High School, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 10482.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Feb. 10, 1971.

McDermott & McDermott, Pocatello, for plaintiff-appellant.

Merrill & Merrill, Pocatello, for defendants-respondents.

McFADDEN, Justice.

In March of 1969 Chris Murphy was called to the office of Mr. Evans, the viceprincipal of Highland High School in Pocatello and told to get his hair cut; Murphy refused and was suspended.

This action was instituted on behalf of Chris Murphy by John C. Murphy, his father and guardian ad litem, the plaintiff-appellant here. Appellant sought a writ of mandate to compel Pocatello School District No. 25, Rulson M. Ellis, superintendent of the school district, and Lionel Bowser, principal of Highland High School, the defendants-respondents, to reinstate Chris Murphy as a senior in the Highland High School following young Murphy's suspension from school for failure to comply with a rule of the school district concerning hair style.

Murphy filed this action on April 7, 1969, following his suspension from Highland High School on March 27, 1969. The trial court issued its order and alternative writ of mandate requiring the respondents to show cause on April 21, 1969, why they should not be enjoined and restrained during the pendency of the action from refusing young Murphy permission to return to school, and further issued a temporary restraining order against the respondents from refusing to allow Murphy to return as a regularly enrolled student. By his complaint, Murphy sought a permanent writ of mandate against the respondents, and also prayed for damages sustained by reason of the acts of the respondents in suspending him from attendance at school.

Respondents moved to dismiss the action, and also appeared before the court on the date required in the order to show cause. Testimony was adduced at that time on behalf of both the appellant and the respondents. Following the hearing on April 21, 1969, the trial court two days later issued a memorandum decision and order which denied the petition for writ of mandate, dismissed the petition and dissolved the restraining order. The respondents then filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court in a memorandum decision recited

'upon stipulation of counsel that the Motion for Summary Judgment could be determined based upon the files, records, and evidence as heretofore presented to the Court * * *'

and then ordered that the motion for summary judgment be granted. Summary judgment for the respondents was entered on May 22, 1969. Appeal was taken from the order of April 28, 1969 dismissing the petition for writ of mandate, and from the summary judgment dated May 22, 1969.

The facts are substantially as follows. In 1956 the Board of Trustees of the school district adopted rules and regulations dealing with student dress, one of which, item '4.f Student Dress,' provided:

'When in the judgment of the principal, the dress, hair style, or affected appearance of any student detracts from the academic atmosphere of the school community and is disruptive of good order and discipline, that student may be suspended from school until such condition is corrected.'

In implementing this rule at Highland High School, Mr. Bowser, the principal, who had helped to draft the foregoing rule, established a rule of thumb test of hair style acceptability of 'off the eyes, off the ears, and off the collar.' The school authorities determined that young Murphy's hair style was in violation of the rule since his hair was over his collar.

Murphy attended Highland High School for approximately three years commencing with his sophomore year. Witnesses testified that his grades were average or better and his attendance and conduct satisfactory, except for the instances in prior years when he had allowed his hair to grow too long. In his junior year he had suffered a suspension for letting his hair grow too long and for some other undisclosed reason, but was reinstated after a day's suspension and after he had his hair cut.

Mr. Ellis, the susperintendent of the Pocatello schools, testified that the reason for the rule relative to student dress and hair style was to maintain the proper academic and disciplinary atmosphere. Mr. Bowser, the principal of Highland High School stated that the rule was necessary for control of a student body of over twelve hundred.

Mr. Evans, the vice-principal stated, in effect, that the line regarding student appearance must be drawn somewhere and that letting down in one area would lead to letting down in other areas as well. It was his opinion that the 'long hair' rule was preventative. As support for this conclusion, Mr. Evans stated that informal dress at school dances results in more disciplinary problems than at formal events. At no point did Mr. Evans establish a correlation between long hair and disciplinary problems.

The record reflects that Murphy as a pupil was not unruly or disruptive and that his attendance and work at school were satisfactory, if not above average. Some of Murphy's fellow students, and one of his instructors testified that Murphy's hair style did not create and problem of disturbance in the various classes, and did not distract from the academic atmosphere. The school district's only testimony regarding an actual problem with a long-haired male student related to an incident involving a forcible haircutting by students of a fellow student on the school grounds about a year before Murphy was suspended. The facts surrounding the incident were not made clear at the hearing. Respondents point out that after this present action was commenced several 'long-haired' students felt the necessity of asking the faculty for protection from certain other students. This action was deemed necessary even though the 'long-haired' students were within the standards established by the school authorities. The question is thus raised as to who actually was to blame for these hair-related 'disturbances.'

Statutory provisions which are involved in this action are:

I.C. § 33-205. 'Denial of school attendance.-The board of trustees may deny attendance at any of its schools, by suspension or expulsion, to any pupil who is an habitual truant, or who is incorrigible, or whose conduct, in the judgment of the board, is such as to be continuously disruptive of school discipline, or of the instructional effectiveness of the school. Any pupil having been suspended or expelled may be readmitted to the school by the board of trustees upon such reasonable conditions as may be prescribed by the board; but such readmission shall not prevent the board from again suspending or expelling such pupil for cause.

No pupil shall be expelled without the board of trustees having first given notice to the parent or guardian of the pupil, which notice shall state the time and place where such parent or guardian may appear and show cause why the pupil should not be expelled. Any pupil who is within the age of compulsory attendance, who is expelled as herein provided, shall come under the purview of the youth rehabilitation law, and an authorized representative of the board shall file a petition with the probate court of the county of the pupil's residence, in such form as the court may require under the provisions of section 16-1807.'

I.C. § 33-506, which provides in pertinent part:

'* * * and the board (of trustees) shall have the following powers and duties:

1. To make by-laws, rules and regulations for its government and that of the district, consistent with the laws of the state of Idaho and the rules and regulations of the state board of education; * * *.'

I.C. § 33-512, which provides in pertinent part:

'The board of trustees of each school district shall have the following powers and duties:

* * *

* * *

6. To prescribe rules for the disciplining of unruly or insubordinate pupils; * * *.'

In this particular action the authority of the board of trustees to adopt rules concerning the standard hair style of the individual students of the district is being challenged. Under the framework of the school system as it exists in this state, the board of trustees of each district is charged with the responsibility of conducting and financing the schools within the confines of the district.

In general, appellant asserts that the requirement that he wear his hair in conformity with the requirement of the school officials is in violation of his constitutional rights. In particular, appellant asserts that his rights to procedural due process were denied under I.C. § 33-205. The record, however, reflects that Murphy, his father and Murphy's counsel were given sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard.

But the substantive constitutional issues appellant raises cannot be disposed of as easily. It must be noted that the traditional presumption of legislative validity does not apply to the substantive issues appellant raises under the First, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly required something more of legislation involving fundamental rights than merely some reasonableness or some relation to the public health, safety and welfare. See, e. g., United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 at pp. 376, 377, 88 S.Ct. 1673 at p. 1679, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968), and cases cited in footnotes; Griswold v. State of Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 at pp. 497-498, 85 S.Ct. 1678 at pp. 1688-1689, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) and cases cited therein.

Respondents would have this court adhere to the proposition that 'School District rules controlling student demeanor and appearance will not be overruled upon judicial review unless the rules appear to be arbitrary and capricious; or...