Facts
- V.A. was a public high school senior and varsity student-athlete at San Pasqual Valley High School.
- During the 2017 football season, V.A. knelt during the national anthem to express a message about racial injustice.
- V.A. knelt at least twice without discipline at his school’s events.
- After an away game, opposing students directed racial slurs and threats at San Pasqual students and sprayed water as teams left the field.
- The District then announced “Initial Rules” requiring students and coaches to stand, remove hats/helmets, and remain standing during the anthem, prohibiting kneeling or sitting as “political protest,” and warning that violations could result in removal from athletic teams.
- The District also drafted a broader policy (Draft BP 1330.2) restricting political activity at school events, including anthem protest.
- V.A. alleged he wished to kneel at imminent basketball games but was chilled by the threatened loss of team participation.
- V.A. filed a § 1983 action alleging the policy violated the First Amendment and sought emergency injunctive relief.
Issues
- Whether a public school district may prohibit a student-athlete from kneeling during the national anthem at school-sponsored athletic events and require standing as a condition of team membership consistent with the First Amendment.
- Whether the plaintiff satisfied the requirements for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest).
Decision
- The court granted a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of the District’s anthem-related restrictions.
- The court found V.A. likely to succeed on the merits because kneeling was protected expressive conduct and the District had not shown a basis under student-speech doctrine to ban it.
- The court concluded the standing requirement and protest ban likely amounted to unconstitutional compelled patriotic expression.
- The court found irreparable harm because imminent loss of First Amendment rights and chilled expression constitutes irreparable injury.
- The court held the balance of equities and the public interest favored protecting constitutional rights.
- In a later order, the court issued a preliminary injunction extending the restraint to the Initial Rules, related administrative directives, the draft policy, and similar restrictions.
Legal Principles
- Under Tinker, student expression may be restricted only if it would materially and substantially disrupt school operations or infringe the rights of others; discomfort or hostility to an unpopular viewpoint is not enough.
- A school generally may not suppress protected student speech based on anticipated reactions of third parties when the speech itself is peaceful and non-disruptive.
- Under Barnette, the government may not compel students to engage in patriotic expression under threat of punishment; conditioning participation in school programs on compliance with compelled expression is constitutionally suspect.
- Loss of First Amendment freedoms, even briefly, constitutes irreparable harm supporting injunctive relief.
- In assessing equitable relief, courts weigh hardships and consider the public interest, which generally favors preventing enforcement of policies that likely violate constitutional rights.
Conclusion
The court enjoined enforcement of a school district’s policy that required student-athletes to stand for the national anthem and barred kneeling as protest, concluding the plaintiff was likely to succeed on claims that the policy both impermissibly restricted protected student expression and unconstitutionally compelled patriotic conduct, and that the remaining injunction factors favored immediate relief.