## Facts

- Two Wisconsin public-school students wore shirts depicting firearms and pro–Second Amendment themes.
- Each school had a dress-code rule barring clothing that depicts weapons.
- School administrators required the students to remove, cover, or stop wearing the shirts and enforced the dress-code provision against them.
- The parties stipulated the shirts were not threats, harassment, or targeted intimidation, and there was no evidence of past disruption connected to the shirts.
- The students, through their parents, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the enforcement violated the First Amendment.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the principals, applying a nonpublic-forum/“legitimate pedagogical concerns” approach and relying on circuit precedent.
- The students appealed.

## Issues

1. What constitutional standard governs restrictions on student-initiated, non-school-sponsored expression on personal clothing: *Tinker*’s substantial-disruption test or a more deferential pedagogical-concerns/forum-analysis test?
2. Under the correct standard, may schools ban gun-imagery clothing based on generalized safety and anxiety concerns without evidence supporting a reasonable forecast of material and substantial disruption (or rights-invasion)?
3. Whether circuit precedent applying a pedagogical-concerns/forum-analysis approach to certain student speech restrictions should remain controlling.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the students.
- The court held *Tinker* supplies the governing standard for viewpoint-neutral restrictions on student-initiated personal expression (including clothing), absent application of recognized categorical exceptions.
- Applying *Tinker*, the court concluded the schools failed to show a reasonable forecast of material and substantial disruption or invasion of the rights of others on this record.
- The court overruled prior circuit precedent that had allowed a more deferential “legitimate pedagogical concerns” analysis for student-initiated expression in this context.

## Legal Principles

- Student-initiated expression at school may be restricted only if school officials can reasonably forecast that it will materially and substantially disrupt schoolwork or discipline, or invade the rights of others (*Tinker*).
- *Hazelwood*’s deferential standard applies to school-sponsored expression reasonably perceived to bear the school’s imprimatur; it does not displace *Tinker* for ordinary student personal expression such as clothing.
- The categorical exceptions for regulating student speech without showing *Tinker* disruption are limited (e.g., lewd speech, drug-promotion speech, and school-sponsored speech).
- Generalized fears about safety, discomfort, or anxiety—without concrete, specific evidence supporting a reasonable forecast of disruption—are insufficient to justify restricting student-initiated expression.
- Within the circuit, *Tinker* governs review of restrictions on student personal expression, including limits on student religious expression, rather than nonpublic-forum/pedagogical-concerns analysis.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that public schools must evaluate restrictions on student-initiated clothing messages under *Tinker* and cannot enforce blanket bans on gun-imagery apparel based only on generalized safety concerns without evidence supporting a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption or rights-invasion; inconsistent circuit precedent was overruled.


N.J. by Jacob v. Sonnabend, 37 F.4th 412 (7th Cir. 2022)