Schoolgirl, 6, off the hook for poignant hand-written BLM letter principal said was ‘racist’ thanks to 1960s civil rights ruling
A federal appeals court in California has sided with a young student who was disciplined after creating a drawing at school that referenced the phrase “Black Lives Matter” and adding the words “any life” along with thumbprints from classmates.
The incident happened in 2021 at Viejo Elementary School in Mission Viejo, California. After listening to a story about the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., a white student identified in court records as “B.B.” made a drawing and gave it to a Black classmate, identified as “M.C.” The picture included the words “Black Lives Matter,” with “any life” written nearby and thumbprints from friends placed underneath.
When M.C. brought the drawing home, the child’s mother contacted the school to raise concerns. According to B.B.’s mother, Chelsea Boyle, the school’s principal, Jesus Becerra, told B.B. the drawing was racist, required her to apologize to the other student, and barred her from recess for two weeks.
Boyle later filed a lawsuit against the school, arguing that her daughter’s First Amendment rights had been violated.
A federal district court initially ruled in favor of the school and its principal. U.S. District Judge David Carter concluded the drawing did not qualify as protected speech and said the school’s response was justified because the situation interfered with the other student’s right to be left alone.
Carter also noted that the age of the students played a role in his decision. He wrote that regulating speech among younger children carries fewer drawbacks than at the high school level, where students are closer to voting age and controversial speech can encourage meaningful discussion.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed with that conclusion and overturned the lower court’s decision. In a unanimous opinion, a three-judge panel said elementary school students can still be protected by the First Amendment.
The judges relied on the legal framework established in the Supreme Court’s Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, which recognized students’ right to express themselves in school under certain conditions.
The appeals court stated that while a student’s age is relevant when evaluating school speech cases, it is not the deciding factor. The panel determined that the earlier ruling failed to properly apply the standards set by Tinker and said there were unresolved factual questions about whether the school’s punishment was justified.
Because of those issues, the appeals court vacated the summary judgment that had favored the school and sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
Following the decision, Boyle welcomed the ruling, saying it represents more than just a victory for her daughter. She wrote that the outcome reinforces constitutional protections for students nationwide and emphasized that the Constitution does not set an age limit for those rights.
Attorneys representing the family also praised the decision. Caleb Trotter, a senior attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, said the ruling confirms that young students do not lose their constitutional protections simply because of their age. He added that children should not face punishment for sharing what they believe is a positive message with a classmate.
The case will now return to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for additional proceedings.
About Post Author
