,89473, 09 , ; ,/843
`4:39 $.44 / 09 ,
`
`4
`
`
` %(0 8.44 -4,7/8 :31472 54.  5,88
`.43899:943, 8.7:93 1 9 1:79078 ,3 25479,39 47
`8:-89,39, 4;0732039 3907089 1 90 3907089 8
`:370,90/ 94 90 8:55708843 41 89:/039 05708843 ,3/ 1
`90 3./039, 70897.9438 43 789 203/2039 ,.9;908
`,70 34 2470 9,3 8 30.088,7 94 1,.9,90 9,9 3907089
`
`#   # &
`% % !&% 
`!:78:,39 94 $9 7.:9 #:0  
`
`%#  %%     55 ! 9 7
`0 ,20 , 5 
`
`&% $%%$  &#%  !!$
`
` # % $ % #&%
`*****************
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2001 FED App . OO64P (6th Cir.)
`% #' - ,3/
`File Name: 01a0064p.06
`974: 07 5,70398 ,3/
`:,7/,38 70 ,3/ $,3/7,
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`,7,;0
`
`/ .93 &390/ $9,908 ; 703   &$  
`
`% % $% # - ,3/
`   553 9,9 9089 94 90 5708039 .,80  4:/
`.43.:/0
`9,9 , 89,-0 /87:5943
`1700 0/:.,943,
`974: 8 5,7039 ,3/
`03;7432039 8 , 8:-89,39, 4;0732039 3907089 9,9 90
`:,7/,3 !,98 #09
`RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
`4
`
`3907089 8 :370,90/ 94 90 8:55708843 41 89:/039 05708843
`!,3911
`550,39
`Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206
`20
`Castorina, et al. v. Madison
`No. 99-6309
`,3/ 9,9 - 293 90 574-943 94 .493 .  -0
`/87:59;0
`90 8.44 23208 789 203/2039
`County School Bd., et al.
`70897.9438 94 34 2470 9,3 ,9 8 30.088,7 94 1,.9,90 9,9
`3907089
`[T]he
`school board’s uniform policy will pass
`constitutional scrutiny if it
`fi.1rthers an important or
` .43.:7 3 702,3/3 98 .,80 94 90 /897.9 .4:79 147
`substantial government
`interest;
`if the interest
`is
`30.088,7 13/38 41 1,.9  4:/ .43.:/0 40;07 9,9
`unrelated to the suppression of student expression; and if
`1 90 /897.9 .4:79 13/8 0;/03.0 94 8:55479 /0103/,398
`the incidental restrictions on First Amendment activities
`.43903943 9,9 573.5, :9 70,843,- -00;0/ 9,9 , 5747
`are no more than is necessary to facilitate that interest.
`19 4..:770/ ,8 , 708:9 41 90 570803.0 41 , .4310/07,90 1,
`,3/ 9,9 5747 19 ,;0 :9 70,843 94 ,39.5,90 ,//943,
`Id. (citing United States v. 0’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377
`/87:5943 903 /0103/,398 70:,943 41 5,39118 .43/:.9
`(1968)). Applying that test to the present case, I would
`,8 34 2470 9,3 9,9 30.088,7 94 ,.0;0 , .42503
`conclude
`that
`a
`stable,
`disruption-flee
`educational
`4;0732039 3907089 ,3/ // 349 ;4,90 90 789 203/2039
`environment is a substantial government interest, that the
`interest is unrelated to the suppression of student expression,
`and that by limiting the prohibition to clothing which will be
`disruptive,
`the
`school minimizes First Amendment
`restrictions to no more than what is necessary to facilitate that
`interest.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`!,3911
`FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
`
`;
`
`$   &% $ 
`T]]\/IOTHY CASTORINA, by and
` # $   $ 
`through his parent and
`  &% $ 
`guardian, Patsy Rewt,
` $  ,8 $:5073903/039
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`41 90 ,/843 4:39
`$.44 897.9 
`TIFFANY DARGAVELL, by and
`&% ,8 !73.5, 41
`through her parents and
`,/843 0397,  $.44
`guardians, Greg and Sandra
`0103/,398
`550008
`Dargavell,
`
`Plaintifi’,
`
`No. 99-6309
`
`550, 1742 90 &390/ $9,908 897.9 4:79
`V.
`147 90 ,89073 897.9 41 039:. ,9 03943
`4
`  037 # 49 7 897.9 :/0
`MADISON COUNTY SCHOOL
`
`BOARD; SHANNON JOHNSON;
`
`
`WILLIAM FULTZ; SHANNON
`JOHNSON, as Superintendent
`of the Madison County
`
`I concur in remanding this case to the district court for
`necessary findings of fact.
`I would conclude, however, that
`if the district court finds evidence to support defendants’
`contention that principal Fultz reasonably believed that a prior
`fight occurred as a result ofthe presence of a confederate flag
`and that prior fight gave Fultz reason to anticipate additional
`disruption, then defendants’ regulation of plaintiffs’ conduct
`was no more than that necessary to achieve a compelling
`government interest and did not violate the First Amendment.
`
`

`
`
`
`,89473, 09 , ; ,/843
`4:39 $.44 / 09 ,
`
`4
`
`
`4
`
`
`,89473, 09 , ; ,/843
`4:39 $.44 / 09 ,
`
`
`
`7:0/ 0.02-07 
`
`8.44 ,.9;908 $00 %307   &$ ,9  7,30/ 
`&$ ,9  
`
`0./0/ ,3/ 0/ ,7.  
`
`01470 ##%%  ,3/  7.:9
`:/08
`
`%0 19 7.:98 70.039 0;,:,943 41 789 203/2039
`57490.943 3 , 8.44 80993 8 ,55.,-0 070 $00 ,3,/
`; 48807 !,78 $.44 4,7/      9 7
`,3    3 ,3,/ 90 19 7.:9 :50/ , 8.448
`79 94 03147.0 , 2,3/,947 8.44 :31472 1907
`*****************
`
`,.340/3 9,9 90 6:08943 41 8.44 :314728 // 349
` &$
`19 0,.9 93 90 9700 .,904708 089,-80/ - %307 ;
`08 4308 3/0503/039 $.44 897.9   &$    
`,//70883 8.44 70:,943 /70.90/ ,9 850.1. 89:/039
`No. 99-6309
`Castorina, et al. v. Madison
`19
`;054398 090 $.44 897.9 ; 7,807  &$  
`  ,//70883 89:/039 05708843 3;4;3 0/ ;:,7
`County School Bd., et al.
`47 4-8.030 8500. ,3/ ,044/ $.44 897.9 ;
`:2007   &$   ,//70883 8.44
`
`school activgties. See Tinker, 393 U.S. at 511; Grayned, 408
`85438470/ 89:/039 8500. 90 .4:79 0/ 9,9
`U.S. at 119.
`
`#& ,/. 0 $,70 !479824:9 4 147
`550,39 ,2  40 9 $9073 039:. 147
`2
`Castorina, et al. v. Madison
`No. 99-6309
`550008  # 7  438 $ &%#
`County School Bd., et al.
` #$ &# %#  ,. 4:39,3
`479 ,743, 147 550,39 ,2  40 9
`Argued: December 7, 2000
`$9073 039:. 147 550008
`
`##%%  /0;070/ 90 45343 41 90 .4:79 3 .
`Decided and Filed: March 8, 2001
`  430/   55 
` /0;070/
`, 805,7,90 .43.:773 45343
`Before: MERRITT, KENNEDY, and GILMAN, Circuit
`Judges.
`*****************
`
` ! 
`COUNSEL
`*****************
`
`##%% 7.:9 :/0 !73.5, ,2 :9 41
`ARGUED: Chadwick Kyle Sayre, Portsmouth, Ohio, for
`,/843 4:39  $.44 9.0 8:8503/0/ 89:/0398
`Appellant. William H. Fogle, Mt. Sterling, Kentucky, for
`%249 ,89473, ,3/ %11,3 ,7,;0 147 0,73 %
`8798
`Appellees. ON BRIEF: Kirk D. Lyons, SOUTHERN
`/85,3 90 4310/07,90 1, 90 7,943,0 147 90
`LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER, INC., Black Mountain,
`8:85038438 ,8 9,9 90 %
`8798 ;4,90/ 90 8.44 /7088
`North Carolina,
`for Appellant. William H. Fogle, Mt.
`.4/0 . -,38 .493 .439,33 ,3 0, 2247, 47
`Sterling, Kentucky, for Appellees.
`7,.89 25.,9438 443 907 8:85038438 90
`89:/0398 -74:9 8:9 .,033 90 .43899:943,9 41 90
`MERRITT, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which
`/8.53,7 ,.9438 ,3/ 90 /897.9 .4:79 7,390/ 8:22,7
`GILMAN, J., joined. KENNEDY, J. (pp. 14-20), delivered
`:/2039 147 90 8.44 -4,7/ 1907 70;03 9,9 /0.843
`a separate concurring opinion.
`0 13/ 9,9 0 ,70 :3,-0 94 7084;0 90 .43899:943,9 41
`90 8.44 -4,7/8 ,.9438 94:9 343 90 2,3307 3
`. 90 8.44 -4,7/ 03147.0/ 98 /7088 .4/0 ,3/ 0907
`OPINION
`
`MERRITT, Circuit Judge. Principal William Fultz of
`Madison County High School
`twice suspended students
`Timothy Castorina and Tiffany Dargavell for wearing T-shirts
`
`0.,:80  .4.0 41 .493 8 507843, 05708843 9,9
`The Fifth Circuit’s recent evaluation of First Amendment
`,55038 94 4..:7 43 90 8.44 5702808 ,3/  90
`protection in a school setting is applicable here. See Canady
`$.44 4,7/8 :31472 54. 8 :370,90/ 94 ,3
`v. Bossier Parish School Board, 2001 WL 58722 (5th Cir.
`;05439 , 0;0 41 8.7:93 84:/ ,55 3 98 .,80
`Jan. 23, 2001). In Canady the Fifth Circuit upheld a school’s
`9,9 8 07 9,3 90 89,3/,7/ 3 :2007 -:9 088
`right
`to enforce a mandatory school uniform. After
`8973039 9,3 90 8.44 411.,8 -:7/03 3 %307
`acknowledging that the question of school uniforms did not
`fit exactly within the three categories established by Tinker v.
`,3,/       %,9 8,20 89,3/,7/ 84:/
`Des Moines IndependentSchoolDistrict, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
`,55 94 90 5708039 .,80 070  5,39118 .4.0 41
`(addressing school regulation directed at specific student
`.4310/07,90 1, 8798 ,8 507843, 05708843 ,3/ ,8
`viewpoints), Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675
`.0,7 349 8.44 85438470/ ,3/  90 700;,39 547943 41
`(1986) (addressing student expression involving lewd, vulgar
`90 /7088 .4/0 54. -,333 /87:59;0 .493 8
`or obscene speech), and Hazelwood School District v.
`;05439 30:97, 3 1472:,93 9,9 89,3/,7/ 90 19
`Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)
`(addressing school-
`7.:9 903 .43.:/0/ 9,9
`sponsored student speech), the court held that:
`
`Because (1) choice ofclothing is personal expression that
`happens to occur on the school premises and (2) the
`
`School Board’s uniform policy is unrelated to any
` .079,3 ,700 9 90 573.50 5:9 1479 - 90 2,479 9,9
`viewpoint, a level of scrutiny should apply in this case
`70:,943 41 789 203/2039 8500. 2:89 -0 .439039 30:97, 0.,:80
`90 25.,90/ 547943 41 90 8.448 /7088 .4/0 54. 574-93 ,3
`that is higher than the standard in Kuhlmeier, but less
`/7088 . 4:/ .,:80 /87:5943 8 .439039 30:97, 40;07  825
`stringent than the school off1cial’s burden in Tinker.
`/4 349 13/ , /8.:8843 41 .439039 30:97,9 /85489;0 3 98 .,80
`
`Canady, 2001 WL 58722, *5. That same standard should
`apply to the present case, where (1) plaintiffs’ choice of
`confederate flag shirts was personal expression and was
`clearly not school sponsored, and (2) the relevant portion of
`
`

`
` ,89473, 09 , ; ,/843
`4:39 $.44 / 09 ,
`
`4
`
`
`4
`
`
`,89473, 09 , ; ,/843
`4:39 $.44 / 09 ,
`
`
`
`.4:/ .079,3 -0 70897.90/ -:9 43 1 90 147-//03
`.43/:.9 2,907, /87:598 .,8847 47 3;4;08
`8:-89,39, /847/07 47 3;,843 41 90 798 41 49078
`
`7,30/  &$ ,9 
` .93 %307   &$ ,9 
` :79072470 3 :54/3 90 .9 47/3,3.0 574-93
`348 ,3/ /87:59;0 5.093 4:98/0 , 8.44 90 7,30/
`4:79 05,30/ 9,9 90 47/3,3.0 ,8 .43899:943,
`
`-0.,:80
` ,.98
`
`,/843 4:39  $.44 ,/ ,.9:, 050703.0/ ,3
`7,., -,80/ ;403.0 5747 94 90 8:85038438 8 , 708:9
`2,907, 6:089438 41 1,.9 702,3 . 703/07 98 .,80
`3,557457,90 147 8:22,7 :/2039 ,3/ 0 90701470 702,3/
`98 .,80 94 90 /897.9 .4:79 147 97, 3.0 90 /897.9 .4:79
`,8 2,/0 90 30.088,7 13/38 41 1,.9 9 84:/ ,55 90
`0, 17,2047 809 1479 3 98 45343
`
` %0 47/3,3.0( 408 34 1:7907 9,3 %307 8,8 ,
`2:3.5,9 2, 4 94 570;039 390710703.0 9 98
`8.448 9 8 3,774 9,470/ 94 1:7907 90 9438(
`18
`Castorina, et al. v. Madison
`No. 99-6309
`.42503 3907089 3 ,;3 ,3 :3/87:590/ 8.44
`County School Bd., et al.
`808843 .43/:.;0 94 90 89:/0398 0,733 ,3/ /408 349
`:330.088,7 39071070 9 789 203/2039 798 ,7
`could certainly be restricted, but only if the forbidden
`1742 ,;3 ,3 2507288- -74,/ 5745,.9.
`conduct “materially disrupts classwork or involves
`47/3,3.0 90 943( 5:3808 43 .43/:.9 .
`substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.”
`/87:598 47 8 ,-4:9 94 /87:59 3472, 8.44 ,.9;908
`%,9 /0.843 8 2,/0 ,8 9 84:/ -0 43 ,3
`Grayned, 408 U.S. at 117-18 (citing Tinker, 393 U.S. at 513).
`3/;/:,0/ -,88 ;03 90 5,79.:,7 1,.98 41 90
`Furthermore, in upholding the city ordinance prohibiting
`89:,943
`noisy and disruptive picketing outside a school, the Grayned
`Court explained that
`the ordinance was constitutional
`/ ,9   %:8 90 43 .43/:.9 9,9 .,3 -0 70:,90/ 3
`because:
`47/07 94 ,.0;0 90 .42503 3907089 41 , 89,-0
`0/:.,943, 03;7432039 8 ,.9;9 .  /87:59 9,9
`[The ordinance] goes no further than Tinker says a
`03;7432039 4 4907 70:,943 41 57490.90/ 8500. .,3 -0
`municipality may go to prevent interference with its
`.438/070/ 3,774 9,470/ 94 2009 98 .42503 3907089
`schools.
`It is narrowly tailored to further [the town’s]
`3 8479 0;/03.0 41 0 /87:5943 8 -49 8:11.039 ,3/
`compelling interest in having an undisrupted school
`30.088,7 94 :891 70:,943 41 57490.90/ 8500. 3 , 8.44
`session conducive to the students’ learning, and does not
`80993 %0701470  4:/ 349 43 .43.:/0 9,9 90 8.44
`unnecessarily interfere with First Amendment rights. Far
`4:/ 349 30.088,7 -0 706:70/ 94 574-9 ,.42
`from having an impermissibly broad prophylactic
`8798 1 9 574-98 .4310/07,90 1, 8798 -:9 3 1,.9 
`ordinance,
`[the town] punishes only conduct which
`6:08943 0907 90 8.44 .4:/ -0 5072990/ 94 574-9
`disrupts or is about to disrupt normal school activities.
`/85,3 , 82-4 41 0907 ,.42 47 90 .4310/07,90
`That decision is made, as
`it
`should be, on an
`1, :3088 9 .4:/ 84 0;/03.0 9,9 8:. , /85, 4:/
`individualized basis, given the particular facts of the
`708:9 3 /87:5943 789 203/2039 57490.90/ .43/:.9 2,
`situation.
`43 -0 70:,90/ 1 9 /87:598 47 8 ,-4:9 94 /87:59 3472,
`
`Id. at 119. Thus, the only conduct that can be regulated in
`order
`to achieve the compelling interest of a stable
`educational environment is activity which will disrupt that
`environment. No other regulation of protected speech can be
`considered narrowly tailored to meet this compelling interest.
`In short, evidence of likely disruption is both sufficient and
`
`3 90 1, 41  03 , 41 90 0;0398 3 6:08943 944
`5,.0 %249 ,89473, ,3/ %11,3 ,7,;0 070 89:/0398
`,9 ,/843 0397,  $.44 4.,90/ 3 ,/843 4:39
`No. 99-6309
`Castorina, et al. v. Madison
`3
`039:. ,89473, ,8 , :347 ,3/ ,7,;0 , 17082,3
`County School Bd., et al.
`9 90 920 ,89473, ,3/ ,7,;0 070 /,93 0907
`,/ 570;4:8 050703.0/ ,3 831.,39 /8.53,7
`Madison County High School had actually experienced any
`574-028
`racially based violence prior to the suspensions. As a result,
`material questions of fact remain which render this case
` 3 90 24733 41 $05902-07  -49 5,39118 ,77;0/ ,9
`inappropriate for summaryjudgment and we therefore remand
`8.44 0,73 2,9.3 ,3 ,28 7 .43.079 %
`8798
`this case to the district court for trial. Once the district court
`;03 94 902 - ,7,;08 1,907 4:397 2:8. 89,7 ,3
`has made the necessary findings of fact, it should apply the
` ,28 7 ,8 5.9:70/ 43 90 17439 41 90 %
`8798 ,3/ 94
`legal framework set forth in this opinion.
`4310/07,90 1,8 070 /85,0/ 43 90 -,. ,43 9 90
`57,80 $4:9073 %:3/07 %0 5,39118 8,/ 9,9 90 070
`1. Facts
`0,73 90 %
`8798 3 .4220247,943 41 ,3 ,28
`$78 -79/, ,3/ 94 057088 907 84:9073 079,0 03
`In the fall of 1997, when all of the events in question took
`90 94 89:/0398 039 94 90 573.5,8 411.0 94 .,30
`place, Timothy Castorina and TiffanyDargavell were students
`,7,;08 .,88 8.0/:0 90 573.5, ,2 :9
`at Madison Central High School, located in Madison County,
`314720/ 902 9,9 90 4310/07,90 1, 02-02 ;4,90/ 90
`Kentucky. Castorina was a junior and Dargavell a freshman.
`8.448 /7088 .4/0 0 ,;0 90 89:/0398 90 .4.0 41 0907
`At the time, Castorina and Dargavell were dating. Neither
`9:733 90 8798 38/0 4:9 147 90 7089 41 90 /, 47 709:733
`had previously experienced any significant disciplinary
`420 94 .,30 :9 -,80/ 98 3897:.943 43 8
`problems.
`39075709,943 41 90 8.448 /7088 .4/0 . 574-98
`89:/0398 1742 0,73 ,3 .493 47 02-02 9,9 8
`On the morning of September 17, both plaintiffs arrived at
`4-8.030 80:, 8:089;0 /870850.91: 47 . .439,38
`school wearing matching Hank Williams, Jr. concert T-shirts
`84,38 47/8 47 3 ,3 , /05.98 ,.44 /7:8 94-,..4
`given to them by Dargavell’ s father. Country music star Hank
`47 ,3 0, 2247, 47 7,.89 25.,943 %0 /7088 .4/0
`Williams, Jr. was pictured on the front ofthe T-shirts and two
`850.10/ 9,9 1 90 ;4,943 .4:/ 349 -0 .4770.90/ ,9 8.44
`Confederate flags were displayed on the back, along with the
`903 90 573.5, ,/ 90 ,:9479 94 803/ 90 41103/07 420
`phrase “Southern Thunder.” The plaintiffs said that they were
`wearing the T-shirts in commemoration of Hank Williams,
`Sr.’s birthday and to express their southern heritage. When
`the two students went to the principal’s office to change
`Dargavell’s class schedule,
`the principal, William Fultz,
`informed them that the Confederate flag emblem violated the
`
`

`
`
`
`,89473, 09 , ; ,/843
`4:39 $.44 / 09 ,
`
`4
`
`
`4
`
`
`,89473, 09 , ; ,/843
`4:39 $.44 / 09 ,
`
`
`
`9,9 .,:80 8( /87:5943 41 90 0/:.,943, 574.088 
` 
`
`94 .,30 ,3/ 94 ,883 ,557457,90 5:382039 03
`,89473, ,3/ ,7,;0 701:80/ 94 .425 9 8
`/70.9;08 :9 .,0/ 907 5,70398 0 05,30/ 94 90
`%0 2,479 8:-806:039 .43.:/08 40;07 9,9
`5,70398 9,9 90 .493 ,8 , ;4,943 41 90 /7088 .4/0 -:9
`574-93 90 .4310/07,90 1, 8798 0 4907 89:/0398
`9,9 1 90 5,70398 .43;3.0/ 90 89:/0398 94 4 420 ,3/
`070 ,40/ 94 0,7 ,.42 8798 ,8 349 507288-0
`.,30 9070 4:/ -0 34 /8.53,7 ,.943 1 90 89:/0398
`,8 9 ,24:390/ 94 ;05439 /8.723,943  4:/ 3490 9,9
`701:80/ 94 .,30 90 4:/ -0 8:8503/0/ 147 9700 /,8
`0 9070 8 , 1,.9:, /85:90 573.5, :9 908910/ 9,9
`%0 5,70398 89743 8:554790/ 907 ./7038 /0.843 ,3/
`
`0 ,/ 43 80;07, 4..,8438 ,80/ 89:/0398 94 9,0 411 ,
`:9 8:8503/0/ 0,. 89:/039 9 90 03/ 41 90 9700 /,8
`,.42 879 -:9 9,9 0 ,/ 349 8003 430 70.039
`,89473, ,3/ ,7,;0 709:730/ 94 8.44 0,73 90 8,20
`&3/07 700;,39 $:57020 4:79 .,80, 3.:/3 %307 
`8798 :9 ,,3 05,30/ 9,9 90 1, ,8 411038;0 94
`-00;0 9,9 90 570803.0 41 ,.42 8798 8 7700;,39 94
`4907 89:/0398 ,3/ , ;4,943 41 90 /7088 .4/0 03 90
`4
`Castorina, et al. v. Madison
`No. 99-6309
`No. 99-6309
`Castorina, et al. v. Madison
`17
`90 ,3,88 3 98 .,80 94: 90 %307 4:79 // 8,
`5,70398 70907,90/ 907 8:55479 147 90 89:/0398 /0870 94 0,7
`9,9 (9 8 ,84 700;,39 9,9 90 8.44 ,:947908 // 349
`90 %
`8798 :9 8:8503/0/ 902 147 , 80.43/ 9700
`/,
`County School Bd., et al.
`County School Bd., et al.
`5:75479 94 574-9 90 0,73 41 , 82-48 41 549., 47
`5074/ ,89473, ,3/ ,7,;0 30;07 709:730/ 94 ,/843
`.43974;078, 831.,3.0 90 4:79 903 220/,90
`0397, ,3/ 070 8:-806:039 ;03 420
`8.443 - 907
`to change and to assign appropriate punishment. When
`that “cause[s] disruption of the educational process.” (J.A.
`,.340/0/ 9,9 90 .,80 4:/ -0 /1107039 070 9070
`5,70398
`Castorina and Dargavell
`refused to comply with his
`81.)
`0;/03.0 41 /87:5943 / ,9   %0 4:79 89,90/ 9,9
`directives, Fultz called their parents. He explained to the
`3 7:3 43 90 89:/0398 8:9 .,033 907 8:85038438
` .43/:.9 - 90 89:/039    . 147 ,3 70,843   
`The majority subsequently concludes, however,
`that
`parents that the clothing was a violation ofthe dress code, but
`90 /897.9 .4:79 14:3/ 9,9 0,73 90 %
`8798 // 349
`2,907, /87:598 .,8847 47 3;4;08 8:-89,39, /847/07
`prohibiting the confederate flag shirts while other students
`that if the parents convinced the students to go home and
`6:,1 ,8 8500.,3/ 9,9 0;03 1 9 070 8500. 90
`   8 41 .4:780 349 22:30/ - 90 .43899:943,
`were allowed to wear Malcolm X shirts was not permissible
`change there would be no disciplinary action. If the students
`5,39118 1,0/ 94 84 , 789 203/2039 ;4,943 3
`:,7,3900 41 1700/42 41 8500. / ,9  %0 $:57020
`as it amounted to viewpoint discrimination. Iwould note that
`refused to change, they would be suspended for three days.
`,//943 90 .4:79 700.90/ 90 5,39118 .43903943 9,9 90
`4:79 ,8 9801 70;00/ %307 3 7,30/ ; 9 41
`while there is a factual dispute, principal Fultz testified that
`The parents strongly supported their children’s decision, and
`8.44 /7088 .4/0 ,8 ;,:0 ,3/ 4;07-74,/ %0 4:79 903
`#4.147/  &$     %070 90 4:79 05,30/
`he had on several occasions asked students to take off
`Fultz suspended each student. At the end of the three days,
`/82880/ , 8:5502039, 89,90 .,28 94:9 570:/.0
`90 4/3 3 %307
`Malcolm X shirt, but that he had not seen one recently.
`Castorina and Dargavell returned to school wearing the same
`Under relevant Supreme Court caselaw, including Tinker, I
`shirts. Fultz again explained that the flag was offensive to
` (0 34070 8:0890/ 9,9 89:/0398 90,.078 47
` 3,88
`other students and a violation of the dress code. When the
`believe that the presence of Malcolm X shirts is irrelevant to
`,3430 080 ,8 ,3 ,-84:90 .43899:943, 79 94 :80 ,
`the analysis in this case. Although the Tinker Court did say
`5,798 41 , 8.44 -:/3 47 98 220/,90 03;7438 147
`that “[i]t
`is also relevant that the school authorities did not
`8 :3290/ 057088;0 5:754808 57088;0 ,.9;9
`purport to prohibit the wearing of all symbols of political or
`controversial significance,” the Court
`then immediately
`acknowledged that the case would be different were there
`evidence of disruption.
`Id. at 510. The Court stated that,
`
`:98 /0548943 9089243 ,8 ,8 1448
`“conduct by the student,
`.
`.
`. which for any reason .
`.
`.
`" 4 2,3 9208 ,;0 4: ,80/ 8420-4/ 94 9,0 ,
`materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder
`,.42 879 411 3 4:7 8.44
`.
`is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional
`.
`.
` ;0 ,80/ 902 43
`
` .,39 .4:39 -:9 ;0 ,80/ 902 43
`guarantee of fieedom of speech.” Id. at 513. The Supreme
`80;07, 4..,8438
`" 03 ,8 90 ,89 920 4: ,80/ 902
`Court has itself reviewed Tinker in Grayned v. City of
`  /439 70.,  ,;039 8003 430 98 0,7
`Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972). There, the Court explained
`  
`the holding in Tinker:
`
`parents reiterated their support for the students’ desire to wear
`%8 .,80 7,808 94 2,3 6:089438  /408 0,73 90
`the T-shirts, Fultz suspended them for a second three-day
`4310/07,90 1, %
`8798 6:,1 ,8 90 950 41 8500.
`period. Castorina and Dargavell never returned to Madison
`.4;070/ - 90 789 203/2039 ,3/  1 84 8 9,9 8500.
`Central and were subsequently given home-schooling by their
`57490.90/ ;03 90 850., 7:08 4;0733 8.448 ,:9479
`94 70:,90 89:/039 8500. %0 /897.9 .4:798 ,3807 94 90
`parents.
`1789 6:08943
`
` 9,9 0,73 90 ,3 ,28 7 %
`8798
`In ruling on the students ’ suit challenging their suspensions,
`// 349 6:,1 ,8 8500.
`
` ,8 3.4770.9 %0 5,39118
`the district court found that wearing the T-shirts did not
`470 90 8798 94 057088 , .079,3 ;05439 ,3/ 9,9
`qualify as “speech”and that even if it were “speech,” the
`;05439 ,8 0,8 ,8.079,3,-0 - ,3 4-807;07 3 90
`plaintiffs failed to show a First Amendment violation.
`In
`80.43/ 6:08943 ;03 , 41 90 1,.98 3 90 9 2489
`addition, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the
`1,;47,-0 94 90 5,39118 9 ,550,78 9,9 90 8.44 -4,7/
`school dress code was vague and overbroad. The Court then
`dismissed all supplemental state claims without prejudice.
`
`II. Analysis
`
`This case raises two main questions: (1) does wearing the
`
`teachers, or
`[W]e nowhere suggested that students,
`anyone else has an absolute constitutional right to use all
`parts of a school building or its immediate environs for
`
`

`
` ,89473, 09 , ; ,/843
`4:39 $.44 / 09 ,
`
`4
`
`
`4
`
`
`,89473, 09 , ; ,/843
`4:39 $.44 / 09 ,
`
`
`
`03147.0/ 90 /7088 .4/0 3 ,3 :30;03 ,3/ ;05439
`850.1.
`2,3307
`9070- ;4,93 .470 ;,:08 41
`90 789
`203/2039 3 ,//943 90 8.44 ,8 349 843 9,9 90
`5,39118 .43/:.9 .70,908 , 044/ 41 ;403.0 47 4907
`/87:5943 9,9 ,77,398 98 3/ 41 70:,943
`
`3 ,//943  .,3349 ,700 9 90 2,4798 89,902039
`9,9 90 8.448 7,943,0 147 90 8:85038438 ,8 9,9 90 %
`
`8798 ;4,90/ 90 8.44 /7088 .4/0 . -,38 .493
`.439,33 ,3 0, 2247, 47 7,.89 25.,9438
` 0  ,700 9,9 573.5, :9 -,330/ 90 8798 -0.,:80
`90 ;4,90/ 90 8.448 /7088 .4/0 0 // 349 70 43 90
` %0 !,39118 43/:.9 ,8 $500. 4;0730/ - 90
` 7,.89 25.,9438 547943 41 90 54. 4397,7 94 90
`789 203/2039 3 %0,8 ; 43843   &$ 
`2,4798 /08.75943 41 90 1,.98 :98 /0548943
`
` 90 1,
`-:733 .,80 90 $:57020 4:79 ,/ 4:9 90
`9089243 .0,7 3/.,908 9,9 0 05.9 701:80/ 94 8,
`89,3/,7/ 147 ,9 .43/:.9 .43899:908 05708843 57490.90/ -
`9,9 0 94:9 90 1, ,8 7,.89
`90 789 203/2039 %8 36:7 14.:80/ 43 0907 ,(3
`39039 94 .43;0 , 5,79.:,70/ 2088,0 ,8 5708039 ,3/
`No. 99-6309
`Castorina, et al. v. Madison
`5
` 0907( 90 044/ ,8 70,9 9,9 90 2088,0 4:/ -0
`:3/078944/ - 9480 4 ;00/ 9 / ,9   3 90 389,39
`County School Bd., et al.
`.,80 90 /897.9 .4:79 .43.:/0/ 9,9 90 5,39118 3903/0/
`94 .4220247,90 ,3 ,28 $78 -79/, %0 .4:79
`enforced the dress code in an uneven and viewpoint-specific
`14:3/ 9,9 98 ,8 , 5,79.:,70/ 2088,0 -:9 9,9 98
`manner,
`thereby violating core values of
`the First
`2088,0 ,8 :3,8.079,3,-0 -,80/ 43 90 5,39118 /0.843
`Amendment.
`In addition, the school has not shown that the
`94 0,7 , ,3 ,28 7 %
`879 %0 .4:79 .,7,.9070/
`plaintiffs’ conduct creates a likelihood of violence or other
`90 0,73 41 9080 %
`8798 ,8 , 2070 /85, 41 ,
`disruption that warrants this kind of regulation.
`.4310/07,90 1, ,3/ 7:0/ 9,9 98 // 349 708:9 3 , 13/3
`41 57490.90/ 8500. 49 5,39118 40;07 908910/ 9,9
`1. The Plaintiffs’ Conduct was Speech Governed by the
`90 3903/0/ 94 .43;0 57/0 3 907 84:9073 079,0 3
`First Amendment. — In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397
`,//943 94 ,3 2088,0 ,884.,90/ 9 ,3 ,28 $7
`(1989) (the flag-buming case), the Supreme Court laid out the
`%0 8.44 -4,7/ /408 349 /85:90 90 5,39118 .,2 9,9
`standard for what conduct constitutes expression protected by
`90 ,84 3903/0/ 94 ,1172 907 84:9073 -,.74:3/8 %0
`the First Amendment. This inquiry focused on “whether [a]n
`%
`8798 57423039 /85,0/ 94 4310/07,90 1,8 ,3/ 90
`intent to convey a particularized message was present and
`57,80 $4:9073 %:3/07 3 ,//943 -49 ,3 ,28
`[whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be
`$7 ,3/ ,3 ,28 7 ,70 83078 480 8438 ,;0
`understood by those who viewed it.” Id. at 404. In the instant
`89743 ,550, 3 90 $4:9 0 90701470 .43.:/0 9,9 90
`case, the district court concluded that the plaintiffs intended
`5,39118 3903/0/ 94 057088 2470 9,3 , 2070 ,5570.,943
`to commemorate Hank Williams, Sr.’s birthday. The court
`147 90 10 ,3/ 2:8. 41 0907 507147207 :7907 907
`found that this was a particularized message, but that this
`/0.843 94 709:73 94 8.44 ,9 90 03/ 41 90 1789 8:8503843
`message was unascertainable based on the plaintiffs’ decision
`89 0,73 90 %
`8798 /0243897,908 9,9 90 89:/0398 1:
`to wear a Hank Williams, Jr. T-shirt. The court characterized
`,5570.,90/
`90 2088,0
`9,9 8.44 ,/23897,9478
`the wearing of these T-shirts as a “mere display” of a
`:3/078944/ 90 %
`8798 94 .43;0 0.,:80 90 5,39118
`confederate flag and ruled that this did not result in a finding
`3903/0/ 05708843 ,8 -49 , .4220247,943 41 ,3
`of protected speech. Both plaintiffs, however, testified that
` ,28 $78 -79/, ,8 0 ,8 , 89,902039 ,11723 90
`they intended to convey pride in their southern heritage in
`5,39118 8,70/ 84:9073 079,0 907 /0.843 94 0,7 90
`addition to any message associated with Hank Williams, Sr.
`The school board does not dispute the plaintiffs’ claim that
`they also intended to affirm their southern backgrounds. The
`T-shirts prominently displayed two Confederate flags and the
`phrase “Southern Thunder.” In addition, both Hank Williams,
`Sr. and Hank Williams, Jr. are singers whose songs have
`
` " 4 839 9 97:0 9,9 4: 94/ 2 .0398 ,3/ 90
`16
`Castorina, et al. v. Madison
`No. 99-6309
`5,70398 41 2 .0398 9,9 90 4310/07,90 , ,8 ,
`7,.89 82-4 43 9,9 /,
`County School Bd., et al.
`  /439 34 1  8,/ 9 3 9,9 90728  8,/ 9,9 90
`4310/07,90 , 8 411038;0 94 .079,3 89:/0398
`In addition, I cannot agree with the majority’s statement
`  
`that the school’s “rationale for the suspensions was that the T-
`" $4 94 90 -089 41 4:7 70.40.943 4: 30;07 70,90/
`shirts violated the school dress code, which bans clothing
`94 902 9,9 9 ,8 4:7 45343 9,9 90 4310/07,90
`containing any ‘illegal,
`immoral or racist implications.”’
`,990 , 8 , 7,.89 82-4 8 9,9 4:7 9089243
`While I agree that principal Fultz banned the shirts because
` %,9 8 2 45343  93 3 2 45343 90
`they violated the school’s dress code, he did not rely on the
`4310/07,90 , 8 411038;0 94 -,. 89:/0398
`“racist implications” portion of the policy. Contrary to the
`majority’s description of the facts, Fultz’s deposition
` 
`  ,907 3 90 /0548943 5,39118 ,994730 ,3/
`testimony clearly indicates that he explicitly refused to say
`:9 ,/ 90 1443 0.,30
`that he thought the flag was racist:
`" 0 09 20 :89 .:9 79 94 90 .,80 903 4 4:
`Q: Now, isn’t it true that you told my clients, and the
`93 90 4310/07,90 , 8 , 7,.89 82-4
`parents of my clients that the Confederate Flag was a
` %,98 4: 34 ,8 1,7 ,8 2 .43.0730/ 90
`racist symbol on that day?
`4310/07,90 , 47 ,3 41 90 4907 3/8 41 8798 8 349
`A:
`I don’t know if I said it in that terms.
`I said that the
`, 9,9 411038;0 94 20 507843, -:9  /4 34 9,9 9
`Confederate Flag is offensive to certain students.
`.,:808 .431.9 -09003 90 89:/0398 ,3/ 9,9 2 4- 8 94
`97 94 05 2,39,3 , 8,10 ,3/ 47/07 03;7432039 147
`Q: So to the best of your recollection you never related
`89:/0398 94 0,73 ,3/ 90,.078 94 90,.
`to them that it was your opinion that the Confederate
`Battle Flag is a racist symbol, is that your testimony?
`:9 05  %:8 03 0 -,330/ 5,39118 8798 90
`A: That is my opinion.
`I think in my opinion the
`70.47/ 507298 90 13/3 9,9 :9 ,.90/ :3/07 90 547943
`Confederate Flag is offensive to black students.
`41 90 8.448 /7088 .4/0 54. . 574-98 ,3 ,9970
`
`(J.A. 170-71.) Later in the deposition, plaintiffs’ attorney and
`Fultz had the following exchange:
`
`Q: Well, let me just cut right to the chase then. Do you
`think the Confederate Flag is a racist symbol?
`A: That’s, you know, as far as I’m concerned the
`
`

`
`
`
`,89473, 09 , ; ,/843
`4:39 $.44 / 09 ,
`
`4
`
`
`4
`
`
`,89473, 09 , ; ,/843
`4:39 $.44 / 09 ,
`
`
`
`,3 ,28 %
`8798 .43899:908 8500. 1,3 93 90
`789 203/2039
`
`34 0;/03.0 41 /87:5943 94 :891 90 70:,943 :9 %307
`,.340/0/ 9,9 ,.9:, /87:5943 2, :891 70:,943 41
`8500.