## Facts

- Cumberland High School held a school-sponsored senior prom, a formal dinner-dance run by the senior class, separate from graduation ceremonies.
- Seniors (absent suspension) could attend, but attendance was optional; attendees were required to bring an escort, who could be a non-student.
- The prom was supervised by administrators and advisers, with teachers and on-duty police present.
- The prior year, the principal denied another student’s request to bring a male date to a school dance, citing fear of disruption and physical harm; the request triggered community attention, harassment, and some violence.
- Aaron Fricke, an openly gay senior, requested permission to attend the senior prom with a male escort; the principal denied the request.
- The principal justified the denial by citing threats of physical harm and expected negative reaction within the student body and community.
- After the request became public, Fricke was subjected to taunts and threats and was punched by a student, requiring stitches; the assailant was suspended and staff escorts were arranged for Fricke at school.
- Fricke sued, seeking a preliminary injunction requiring the school to allow him to attend the prom with a male escort.

## Issues

1. Whether a public high school may bar a student from bringing a same-sex date to a school-sponsored prom based on anticipated hostile reactions, disruption, or violence by others.
2. Whether prohibiting a same-sex prom date violates the student’s First Amendment rights, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, when the choice of escort is expressive conduct.
3. Whether the school’s safety and order interests justify the restriction under the standard governing regulation of expressive conduct.

## Decision

- The court granted Fricke’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- It held that attending the prom with a same-sex escort constituted protected expressive conduct under the First Amendment.
- It ruled that the school could not suppress that expression based on anticipated hostility or potential violence from others (a “heckler’s veto”).
- It found the school’s total ban was broader than necessary and that less restrictive measures (e.g., additional security and discipline for misconduct) could address safety concerns.
- The school was ordered to permit Fricke to attend the prom with a male escort, subject to reasonable security accommodations.

## Legal Principles

- Student expression at school-sponsored events may be restricted only upon an adequate showing of material and substantial disruption; discomfort, controversy, or hostile audience reaction is insufficient.
- A government restriction on expressive conduct must satisfy the O’Brien test, including that the incidental burden on expression be no greater than essential to further a substantial governmental interest.
- Anticipated unlawful acts by third parties cannot justify suppressing protected expression; the state must address threats through protective and disciplinary measures rather than silencing the speaker.
- Loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable injury supporting preliminary injunctive relief; the balance of equities and public interest favor protection of constitutional rights.

## Conclusion

The court ordered the school to allow a student to bring a same-sex date to the prom, holding that the First Amendment protects the expressive choice of escort and that fear of hostile reactions cannot constitutionally justify an outright prohibition when reasonable safety measures are available.


Fricke v. Lynch, 491 F. Supp. 381 (D.R.I. 1980)