From uniforms and dress codes to graduation speeches to messages on clothing, hats, and social media, the school system and the right to free speech have frequently clashed. Over and over, courts have been tasked with defining exactly how much a school can limit speech during class and events.
Consistently, courts have ruled that schools can limit expression to some extent to maintain order, and, along the way, individual cases have defined exactly how far they can go.
The latest case to make it through the system stems from an event in 2022 and involves a child wearing a hat depicting a firearm.
A Child’s Family Sued Over A School Decision Regarding Her “Come And Take It” Hat
In 2022, Kerr Elementary School, in Durand, Michigan, held a “Great Kindness Challenge,” which included event days for different fun themes. For one of these events, kids were invited to wear hats to school for the day and to consider ways to exemplify the theme of kindness.
For a third-grader identified as C.S. in court documents, that meant wearing a hat belonging to her father, Adam Stroub, which depicted a firearm and the words “come and take it.”
According to EdWeek, when the principal found out, he worried that the hat’s message might cause a disturbance or discomfort, particularly since the school included students who had transferred from a nearby district after a shooter had killed four students and injured another seven people there three months previously.
The child’s father refused to bring her a different hat, but she agreed to place it in her locker. Her family sued, arguing that her right to free speech had been infringed upon.
Courts Have Consistently Sided With The School In This Case
In a copy of the order shared by Courthouse News, the court ruled in favor of the school. The ruling cited school rules:
“Anything printed on clothing must not be offensive in any way. The building principal/staff has the right to decide what is offensive, but some examples are: words/slogans that advertise illegal substances, words/slogans that are racially or religiously offensive, violence themes, vulgar or sexual innuendo, etc.”
Stroub argues that the hat did not have a violent theme; the principal said he interpreted the image and the words together as violent. The court ruled:
“In reaching the conclusion that it does, the Court does not question C.S.’s sincere support for the Second Amendment, or her right to express that support. But under First Amendment case law, school administrators may place reasonable regulations governing the manner of that expression while she is in the school setting if reasonably necessary to avoid disruptions of the teaching and learning process in light of the age of the students and the context of recent experiences.”
Since that ruling in 2024, the case has made its way through the appeals process and finally landed at the Supreme Court.
SCOTUS Declines To Review
By refusing to review the case, the Supreme Court has allowed the current ruling to stand. The child’s family’s legal team continues to argue that this was not about the disruption of school, but a decision to silence a viewpoint they didn’t like, according to USA Today.
“”Rather than take the opportunity to convey to a bright, politically aware 8-year-old that her voice and thoughts matter, school officials instead told her to sit down and shut up − presumably because they personally don’t like the Second Amendment or the rights it protects,” lawyers for the student and her father, Adam Stroub, said in the appeal.”
Notably, complaints about schools suppressing speech come from a variety of viewpoints. One recent example is Leen Hijaz, who was graduating as valedictorian from a North Carolina high school when she went off-script to speak about current concerns regarding immigration, Palestine, and human rights.
According to Newsweek, the principal pulled her away from the microphone and told her she wouldn’t receive her diploma. (At this time, no free speech lawsuit has been filed in this case.)
The Supreme Court has, however, in recent years, rejected several other cases in which students argue that their schools have inappropriately suppressed speech, suggesting that the current court intends to uphold schools’ power to maintain these limits.
