Running head: COURT CASE

Court Case
Vanessa Vitiello
Monica Rogich, Laurie Smith, Jacinta Vilas
William Paterson University
Problems in Practice: Legal and School Centered Issues
EDLP 6110-60
Robert J. Reid, M. Ed.
April 15, 2016

Court Case
Complaint and Case History
The case started in 2010 when two girls, then ages 12 and 13, challenged their middle
school's ban on the I Boobies bracelets, which were designed to promote breast cancer
awareness among young people. The students, Brianna Hawk and Kayla Martinez, said they
merely hoped to foster knowledge of the disease at their school. Their parents filed suit on their
behalf when they were suspended for defying the bracelet ban on Breast Cancer Awareness Day.
On November 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit
on behalf of Martinez and Hawk. In April 2011, a district court judge found that Easton Area
School District's (EASD) ban violated students' First Amendment right to free speech and issued
an injunction preventing the school from enforcing its ban. The school district appealed the
injunction, reflecting the important and complex First Amendment issues in the case, the court of
appeals granted en banc review so that the full court of appeals, rather than the three-judge panel
that typically hears each appeal, could weigh in on the case.
On August 5, 2013, the court of appeals ruled that the bracelets could not be banned
because they are not plainly lewd and that because they comment on a social issue, they could
not be banned unless they threatened substantial and material disruption of the school. The court
found no evidence that the bracelets caused or threatened disruption.
The federal court of appeals ruled that student speech is plausibly understood, as the First
Amendment protects commenting on political or social issues, even if it contains language that
could be considered lewd by some. "The majority's opinion recognizes that teens, like adults,
must be free to speak and learn about important issues that affect them. Even issues, like breast

cancer, that make school administrators uncomfortable," said Mary Catherine Roper, counsel in
the case. "The First Amendment protects schools as a space where students are free to discuss
important issues like breast cancer and talk about their bodies in positive terms," said Reggie
Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. "The court's decision today is an
important reminder to school administrators that they can't punish students for speaking out just
because their speech might be uncomfortable or misunderstood." The EASD voted to challenge
the decision made by the federal court of appeals.
Decision
The case appeared three times in different courts, and the verdict was in favor of the
students. The first case in court was in 2010 when the American Civil Liberties Union of
Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit on behalf of Brianna Hawk and Kayla Martinez who were students
at a middle school in the Easton Area School District. They were suspended for wearing the
rubber bracelets on the school's Breast Cancer Awareness Day in the fall of 2010.
In April 2011, a district court found that the Easton Area School Districts ban violated
the First Amendment and issued an injunction preventing the school from enforcing the ban. The
school district appealed the injunction, and in February 2013, Mary Catherine Roper of the
ACLU of Pennsylvania argued the plaintiff's case before 14 judges on the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals. On August 5, 2013 the Court of Appeals ruled that the school could not ban the use of
the bracelets unless it threatens substantial and material disruption of the school. The court found
no evidence that the bracelets caused or threatened disruption.
Cases Cited

Despite its several appeals, the plaintiffs ultimately won the case thanks, in part, to a
precedent set by cases such as Tinker and Fraser in which students, similarly, fought for their
First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community
School District case is about three students wore black armbands to school to show their
opposition to the Vietnam War in December of 1965. This violated a policy, which warned that
students wearing armbands to school would be suspended until they came to school without
them. The students took the school to court and the court determined that the school had failed
to show that the students behavior would cause a disturbance (Dever, 1985, p. 1166). The courts
felt that the schools fear was unsubstantiated and that students shouldnt shed their
constitutional rights to freedom of speech at the schoolhouse gates," (Bomboy, 2014). The
students were allowed to express their points of view as long as they did it in a peaceful manner.
The other case that was cited, Fraser vs. Bethel School District, involved a 17 year-old
senior at Bethel High School in Bethel, Washington, Mathew Fraser. He was suspended in April
of 1983 for three days and taken off of the list of students eligible to make graduation remarks
for delivering a sexually suggestive and crude speech at an assembly to nominate a classmate for
student government. His parents appealed the action. The United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reviewed the Tinker case and upheld the schools decision because his language
was vulgar and lewd and did not fall under the category of political speech, as it did in Tinker.
Effects of the Ruling
The effect of the ruling is that it allows students to freely discuss issues without being
afraid of punishment or sanctions. As Brianna Hawk stated I am happy we won this case,
because its important that students have the right to stand up for a cause and try to make a

difference. We just wanted to raise awareness about breast cancer. However, as Circuit Judge
Greenaway stated, My colleagues have determined today that I boobies is an ambiguous
phrase that may connote an attraction to female breasts, but which falls under the protection of
the First Amendment in the middle school context because it may plausibly be interpreted as
commenting on a political or social issue. Thus, this opens the door to many other uses of
language in school which many people may think are inappropriate or offensive. For example,
Circuit Judge Greenaway and his colleagues on the case pointed out that there are some words
and phrases that all would agree should be afforded no protection in the middle school context,
despite their use in promoting an important social issue. Under this ruling, the following slogans
could be used to promote cancer awareness such as I penises, I vaginas, I testicles,
or I breasts, and school districts would be powerless to address the dissemination of these
slogans on school grounds.
Impact on Education
School administrators are not completely without authority in these Freedom of Speech
cases. However, they do not necessarily have the last word because students and parents are
willing to take the schools to court. Therefore, we now have judges making decisions about
what is and/or what is not disruptive in schools.
Where do we draw the line? Students are not allowed in school if they are wearing a tshirt with the image of a gun on it, or an image of sexual acts, nor ones with words that are
blatantly sexual in nature and context. For example, there is a myriad of nick names for male
and female genitalia. Some of which are lewd and offensive. However, there are those double
entendre which while less vulgar are still offensive (even if only mildly offensive in certain
cases) to certain groups of people.

In the end, school authorities need the ability to enforce the dress codes and maintain
reasonable decorum of the manner of expression in an educational environment, while respecting
the legitimate rights of students to express themselves, said John Freund III, schools district
attorney.

References
American Civil Liberties Union of Philadelphia (2014, March 10). U.S. Supreme Court
Rejects Districts Appeal in I (heart) Boobies! (KEEP A BREAST) Bracelets
Case. Retrieved from https://www.aclupa.org/news/2014/03/10/us-supreme-court-rejects
-school-districts-appeal-i-heart-boo
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1667
B.H., a minor R, by and through her mother; Jennifer Hawk; K.M., a minor by and through her
mother; Amy McDonald-Martinez v. Easton Area School District, D.C. Civil Action
No . 5-10-cv-06283( April 10, 2012.)
Bomboy, S. (2014, March 10). Update: How the "Boobies" case almost made it to the Supreme
Court. Retrieved April 12, 2016, from
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/03/supreme-court-could-reject-or-accept-boobiescase-on-monday/
Dever, J. C. (1985). Tinker Revisited: Fraser v. Bethel School District and Regulation of Speech
in the Public Schools. Duke Law Journal, 1985(6), 1164. doi:10.2307/1372407
Legal Clips (2014, October 7). Pennsylvania district settles I heart Boobies bracelet suit
agrees to pay ACLU $385,000.RSS. Retrieved from http://legalclips.nsba.org/2014/10/
07/pennsylvania-district-settles-i-%E2%99%A5-boobies-bracelet-suit-agrees-to-pay-acl
-385000/
Toppo, U. G. (2014). Supreme Court declines to hear 'boobies' bracelet case. Retrieved
April 15, 2016, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/10/breastcancer-bracelets-supreme-court/6253017/.