Legal Clips, [January 2008]The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (KY, MI, OH, TN) has ruled that a Michigan elementary school principal did not violate a student’s First Amendment free speech rights when she denied his request to sell candy canes containing religious messages as part of a school project. When Principal Irene Hensinger, on the instructions of the Saginaw School District’s superintendent, informed Joel’s mother that the ornaments could not be sold with the message attached, his parents sued both her and the school district alleging violations of the Free Speech, Free Exercise, Establishment, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses. The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that no violation of Joel’s First Amendment rights could be attributed to the school district and that although the principal had violated Joel’s free speech rights, she was entitled qualified immunity from liability because the precise contours of his rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, but did so on the ground that the principal’s actions did not violate Joel’s free speech rights after all. Noting initially that the district court had ruled, and the student agreed, that the free exercise claim was subsumed in the free expression claim, the court addressed only the latter. Because it was undisputed that the class project was part of the curriculum, the court found that the student’s expression was school-sponsored speech governed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), that “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.” The appeals court rejected the lower court’s and the plaintiff’s conclusion that the principal lacked a legitimate pedagogical concern because the candy canes and message fulfilled the goals of the lesson and because the written instructions for the project did not prohibit a religious product. The Sixth Circuit previously has held that the “universe of legitimate pedagogical concerns is by no means confined to the academic,” the court noted. Joel’s expression was part of a curricular assignment, and not one that invited personal views,” and the principal’s decision to bar his product in order to avoid subjecting other students to an unsolicited religious promotional message that might conflict with what they are taught at home qualified as a valid educational purpose, the court concluded.
Curry v. Hensiner, No. 06-2439 (6th Cir. Jan. 16, 2008)
[Editor’s Note: A summary of the district court opinion, which provides more details of the events leading to the lawsuit, and links to other examples of such confectionary jurisprudence are below.]
NSBA School Law pages on Curry v. School Dist. of the City of Saginaw