[DO NOT PUBLISH]
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`
`-------------------------------------------
`No. 05-15064
`Non-Argument Calendar
`--------------------------------------------
`
` FILED
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`June 12, 2006
`THOMAS K. KAHN
`CLERK
`
`D.C. Docket No. 02-01712-CV-P-NE
`
`TYRON WHITE, et al.,
`
`DOYLE GRIMES, on behalf of Blake Grimes,
`a minor, and on behalf of Cody Grimes, a minor,
`
`
`versus
`
`RICKY NICHOLS, in his official capacity,
`DEXTER RUTHERFORD, in his official capacity,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`
`
`Defendants-Appellees.
`
`----------------------------------------------------------------
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of Alabama
`----------------------------------------------------------------
`
`(June 12, 2006)
`
`Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`
`-------------------------------------------
`No. 05-15064
`Non-Argument Calendar
`--------------------------------------------
`
` FILED
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`June 12, 2006
`THOMAS K. KAHN
`CLERK
`
`D.C. Docket No. 02-01712-CV-P-NE
`
`TYRON WHITE, et al.,
`
`DOYLE GRIMES, on behalf of Blake Grimes,
`a minor, and on behalf of Cody Grimes, a minor,
`
`
`versus
`
`RICKY NICHOLS, in his official capacity,
`DEXTER RUTHERFORD, in his official capacity,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`
`
`Defendants-Appellees.
`
`----------------------------------------------------------------
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of Alabama
`----------------------------------------------------------------
`
`(June 12, 2006)
`
`Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`
`PER CURIAM:
`
`Plaintiff-Appellant Doyle Grimes, on behalf of Cody Grimes, a minor,
`
`appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees, Ricky
`
`Nichols, principal of Lawrence County High School (“LCHS”) and Dexter
`
`Rutherford, superintendent of the Lawrence County, Alabama, school system. Per
`
`42 USC § 1983, Plaintiff claimed that Defendants’ school dress code ban on
`
`clothing bearing a confederate flag constituted an unconstitutional violation of
`
`First Amendment rights. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
`1
`
`The district court concluded that Scott v. School Bd. of Alachua County,
`
`324 F.3d 1246 (11 Cir. 2003), was controlling; we agree. In Scott, we
`th
`
`determined that an unwritten ban on the display of Confederate symbols imposed
`
`by school officials constituted no violation of students’s First Amendment rights
`
`when officials presented evidence of racial tensions existing within the school and
`
`testified about fights that seemed to be racially based which had occurred in the
`
`months preceding the ban. Id. at 1249. We accepted in Scott that “public school
`
`students’ First Amendment rights are not forfeited at the school door,” but also
`
`recognized that “those rights should not interfere with a school administrator’s
`
`1
` Suit was brought against Defendants in their official capacities; Plaintiff seeks no money
`damages.
`
`2
`
`
`
` professional observation that certain expressions have led to, and therefore could
`
`lead to, an unhealthy and potentially unsafe learning environment.” Id. at 1247.
`
`Scott concluded that school officials appropriately may censor student
`
`expression under either of two theories. First, citing Tinker v. Des Moines
`
`Independent Comm. School Dist., 89 S.Ct. 733 (1969), and Denno v. School Bd.
`
`of Volusia County, Fla., 218 F.3d 1267 (11 Cir. 2000), the Scott decision allowed
`th
`
`that student speech could be restricted based on a reasonable fear the expression
`
`will disrupt discipline in the school. Id. at 1248. Second, citing Bethel School
`
`District No. 403 v. Fraser, 106 S.Ct. 3159 (1986), and Denno, Scott allowed that,
`
`even absent a showing that disruption was immediately likely, school officials --
`
`charged with responsibility for developing good citizenship -- “must have the
`
`flexibility to control the tenor and contours of student speech within school walls
`
`or on school property.” Id.
`
`We need not revisit the reasoning of Scott: Scott constitutes binding
`
`precedent in this Circuit. See Saxton v. ACF Indus., Inc., 254 F.3d 959, 960 n.1
`
`(11 Cir. 2001) (under prior precedent rule we are bound to follow prior panel’s
`th
`
`precedent unless and until it is overruled by this Court sitting en banc or by
`
`Supreme Court). Here, as in Scott, the record evidenced racial tensions at LCHS
`
`preceding implementation of the ban; and testimony linked those racial tensions
`
`3
`
`
`
`and incidents in which racial slurs were spoken to the display of the Confederate
`
`flag on student clothing. Principal Nichols heard from students who reported
`
`racial slurs spoken by fellow students wearing clothing bearing the Confederate
`
`flag; heard concerns of faculty about potential racial unrest; received reports from
`
`parents of minority students expressing concerns about racial discord (some of
`
`which was attributed directly to the display of the Confederate flag at LCHS); and
`
`heard from one minority student who complained of being intimidated and scared
`
`to the point of feeling ill because she was surrounded by Confederate flags and
`
`racial slurs. 2
`
`Scott, recognizing that the Confederate flag evokes strong feelings, said
`
`“[i]t is not only constitutionally allowable for school officials to closely contour
`
`the range of expression children are permitted regarding such volatile issues, it is
`
`their duty to do so.” Id. at 1249 (quoting the district court opinion). Under Scott,
`
`the district court committed no reversible error when it concluded that Plaintiff
`
`failed to show that his First Amendment rights were unconstitutionally infringed
`
`by the imposition of the Confederate flag clothing ban.
`
`AFFIRMED.
`
`2
` We recognize, as did the district court, that Plaintiff disputes Principal Nichols’s recitation of
`complaints he heard about the Confederate flag. But, also as the district court observed, Plaintiff
`challenged Principal Nichol’s credibility; but Plaintiff proffered no evidence sufficient to create a
`genuine issue of fact about the Principal’s testimony.
`
`4
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
