## Facts

- A Nevada public elementary school adopted a mandatory uniform policy requiring red or navy polo shirts and khaki bottoms.
- The required shirt displayed a school logo on the front and the written motto “Tomorrow’s Leaders” on the back.
- The policy included an exemption allowing students to wear the uniform of “a nationally recognized youth organization such as Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts on regular meeting days.”
- The policy provided escalating discipline for noncompliance, including removal from class, loss of privileges, and possible suspension.
- Parents objected to the motto as compelled speech and attempted to use the exemption by sending their children to school in American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) uniforms.
- School officials rejected the AYSO exemption claim and enforced discipline when the children did not wear the required uniform.
- The parents filed a § 1983 action alleging First Amendment violations; the district court dismissed the First Amendment claims at the pleading stage under intermediate scrutiny.
- The parents appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether requiring students to wear a uniform bearing the motto “Tomorrow’s Leaders” constitutes compelled speech under the First Amendment.
2. Whether an exemption for certain “nationally recognized youth organizations” makes the policy content-based, triggering strict scrutiny rather than intermediate scrutiny.
3. Whether dismissal at the pleading stage was improper absent an evidentiary showing that the policy satisfied the applicable scrutiny.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and remanded.
- The court held the motto requirement plausibly constituted compelled speech, bringing the case within compelled-speech doctrine.
- The court held the youth-organization exemption was facially content-based because it favored certain organizational messages over others.
- Because the policy implicated compelled speech and contained a content-based exemption, strict scrutiny applied rather than the intermediate scrutiny used for content-neutral uniform policies.
- The court concluded the complaint stated a plausible First Amendment claim and that dismissal was premature because the record contained no evidence establishing satisfaction of strict scrutiny.
- The court did not finally determine the policy’s constitutionality on the merits.

## Legal Principles

- Government compels speech when it requires an individual, including a student, to display a written slogan chosen by the government on the individual’s clothing during compulsory attendance.
- A dress or uniform policy becomes content-based when it grants exemptions that depend on the message or identity conveyed by the clothing (e.g., permitting some organizational uniforms but not others).
- Content-based restrictions and compelled-speech requirements are subject to strict scrutiny; the government must prove a compelling interest and narrow tailoring.
- A content-neutral uniform policy lacking slogans and message-based exemptions may be evaluated under a lower level of scrutiny, but that framework does not control when the policy includes compelled messaging or content-based carve-outs.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, a court should not uphold a policy subject to strict scrutiny without an evidentiary record supporting the government’s asserted interests and tailoring.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that a school uniform policy requiring a motto and allowing a message-based exemption plausibly infringed students’ First Amendment rights, required strict scrutiny, and could not be dismissed on the pleadings without factual development.


Frudden v. Pilling, 742 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2014)