## Facts

- Constance McMillen, an openly gay senior at Itawamba Agricultural High School, sought to attend the junior/senior prom with her female girlfriend and to wear a tuxedo.
- School administrators informed McMillen that prom dates had to be opposite-sex and that female students were required to wear dresses, not tuxedos.
- District officials also stated that two female students could not slow-dance together at the prom.
- After McMillen, with assistance from the ACLU, challenged the restrictions, the school board cancelled the school-sponsored prom, citing “distractions to the educational process.”
- Parents then organized a privately funded, off-campus prom open to all juniors and seniors.

## Issues

1. Whether prohibiting a student from attending prom with a same-sex date and from wearing a tuxedo violates the First Amendment as protected expressive conduct.
2. Whether cancelling the school-sponsored prom in response to the student’s protected expression violates the First Amendment.
3. Whether the plaintiff satisfied the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief, including likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public interest.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction in part and denied it in part.
- The court held that banning McMillen’s same-sex date and tuxedo violated the First Amendment because the restrictions targeted protected expressive conduct without evidence of a material and substantial disruption.
- The court found a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury from the loss of First Amendment freedoms.
- The court declined to order the district to reinstate an official school-sponsored prom, given timing and the existence of a parent-sponsored private prom.
- The court provided limited relief to prevent district interference with McMillen attending the private prom with her same-sex date and in a tuxedo.

## Legal Principles

- Student expression is protected at school unless officials can show facts supporting a reasonable forecast of material and substantial disruption; undifferentiated fear of disturbance is insufficient.
- Association and dress may constitute expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment when intended to convey a message and likely to be understood in context.
- Restrictions aimed at suppressing controversial viewpoints, rather than enforcing neutral rules tied to legitimate school interests, are constitutionally suspect and require strong justification.
- Loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for brief periods, constitutes irreparable injury for preliminary-injunction purposes.
- Courts may tailor preliminary relief to practical conditions and may decline mandatory orders that are difficult to implement on an expedited record.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the school district likely violated the First Amendment by barring a student from attending prom with a same-sex date and from wearing a tuxedo without evidence of substantial disruption, but it limited injunctive relief to preventing interference with the student’s participation in an available private prom rather than compelling the district to recreate a school-sponsored event.


McMillen v. Itawamba Cnty. Sch. Dist., 702 F. Supp. 2d 699 (N.D. Miss. 2010)