## Facts

- Central Junior High School in Zion, Illinois implemented a dress code for the 2001–2002 school year aimed at improving the school environment and supporting students’ academic and social development.
- The Board of Education of Zion School District No. 6 (Board) oversaw the school and maintained a general policy that student dress must satisfy health and safety standards and not disrupt school programs.
- The dress code required students to wear clothing that was solid black, solid white, or a combination of black and white.
- The dress code prohibited “logos, patches, pins, imprinted slogans, words and designs” on student clothing.
- The dress code listed allowable items, including tops such as T-shirts, blouses, and shirts, and bottoms such as black and/or white jeans, shorts, and appropriate skirts.
- For noncompliance, the school could send students home to change, require them to wear gym uniforms, and impose further consequences for continued violations.
- The dress code provided a grace period for new students.
- The dress code provided assistance or resources for students unable to comply due to financial hardship.
- The dress code allowed a religious objection exemption if a parent or guardian submitted a signed statement detailing the grounds for the objection.
- Barbara and Robert Vines, proceeding pro se on behalf of themselves and their minor daughter Kathryn Vines, sued the Board in federal court.
- The Vines alleged the dress code violated Kathryn’s First Amendment rights of free speech and free exercise of religion and violated the parents’ Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in directing family and childrearing decisions.
- The case came to the court on cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).

## Issues

1. Whether the school’s black-and-white dress code and blanket ban on logos, slogans, words, and designs on clothing violated a student’s First Amendment right to free speech.
2. Whether the dress code violated the Free Exercise Clause when it was generally applicable and included a procedure for religious objections.
3. Whether the dress code infringed parents’ Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest to direct the upbringing of their child.

## Decision

- The court applied the Rule 12(c) standard used for Rule 12(b)(6) motions and accepted well-pleaded allegations as true.
- The court granted the Board’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the plaintiffs’ motion.
- On the free-speech claim, the court treated the dress code as a generally applicable regulation of student attire that did not target particular viewpoints or messages, and it concluded the complaint did not state a constitutional violation on the pleadings.
- On the free-exercise claim, the court concluded the complaint did not state a violation where the policy was neutral in operation and provided a mechanism for parents to seek an exemption on religious grounds.
- On the parental-rights claim, the court concluded the complaint did not state a substantive due process violation because the Constitution does not give parents a right to override reasonable public-school rules governing student appearance during the school day.
- The result was dismissal of the constitutional challenges at the pleading stage and the dress code remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is evaluated under the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion; judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings show the nonmovant cannot obtain relief under any set of facts consistent with the allegations.
- A school dress code that applies across the board and regulates the manner of student dress, rather than suppressing specific viewpoints, is generally analyzed as a content-neutral rule; such rules are more likely to be upheld when tied to legitimate school interests such as order, safety, and reducing disruption.
- A free-exercise claim requires allegations that a neutral, generally applicable policy actually burdens religious exercise; the presence of an available religious-objection procedure weighs against a claim that the policy unlawfully interferes with religious practice.
- Parents have a recognized liberty interest in directing the upbringing and education of their children, but that interest does not prevent public schools from imposing reasonable, generally applicable rules for students while at school.

## Conclusion

The Northern District of Illinois upheld Central Junior High School’s black-and-white dress code and, on cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, dismissed the Vines family’s claims that the policy violated student free speech and religious exercise rights and interfered with parental liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment.


Vines v. Board of Education of Zion School District No. 6, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228 (2002)