An Orange County mother whose white daughter when in first grade was punished by school administrators for writing "Any Life" on a "Black Lives Matter" drawing she had made for a black classmate has asked a federal appeals court to overturn a federal judge's decision that the school did nothing unconstitutional.
On July 15, public advocacy legal organization, the Pacific Legal Foundation, filed a petition with the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Chelsea Boyle and her child, identified only as B.B.
The petition seeks review of the decision by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter in favor of the Capistrano Unified School District.
“An elementary school is not a totalitarian environment where students have no rights. The district court was wrong to conclude otherwise, bucking longstanding Supreme Court precedent and totally stripping a child of her First Amendment rights,” said Caleb Trotter, an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation.
The appeal centers on the lawsuit filed by Boyle and her child against Capistrano in Feburary 2023.
The lawsuit asserts that in 2021, B.B. faced secretive, but significant discipline from administrators and teachers at Viejo Elementary School in Mission Viejo. The school is operated by the Capistrano Unified School District.
According to court documents, at that time, B.B. was a student in first grade at the school. In March 2021, B.B.'s class read and discussed a book about the life of Martin Luther King Jr., which allegedly first introduced B.B. to the phrase and slogan "Black Lives Matter."
In the wake of historic protests and riots nationwide under that slogan, and amid a heightened emphasis on "anti-racism" in schools in California and elsewhere, B.B.'s school allegedly also prominently featured a display that included the phrase "Black Lives Matter" with a clenched fist, the symbol of the Black Lives Matter movement and other black racial and some other left-wing political causes.
According to court documents, the book and the discussion allegedly made B.B. "feel bad for a classmate of color," identified as M.C.
In class, B.B. drew a picture of M.C., and wrote "Black Lives Mater" (sic) on the drawing, and added "Any Life" beneath it using a lighter color marker.
The drawing further included four circles in different colors, which court documents state was intended by B.B. to "represent three classmates and herself holding hands."
B.B. gave the drawing to M.C., who thanked B.B. and placed the drawing in her backpack and "took it home without comment."
At home, M.C.'s parents discovered the drawing and the next day called the school's principal, identified as Jesus Becerra, to ensure the drawing was not meant to indicate their child was being singled out for discussion because she is black.
According to court documents, M.C.'s parents understood the innocent intent behind the drawing and specifically stated they did not wish for B.B. to receive any kind of discipline.
However, following the conversation, Boyle said Becerra did not abide by M.C.'s parents wishes, but instead punished B.B., calling the drawing "racist and inappropriate," noting that including the phrase "any life" alongside "Black Lives Matter" was "inconsistent with values taught in the school."
According to court documents, Becerra confronted B.B. and forced her to apologize to M.C. for drawing the picture. Both children allegedly were confused by the need to apologize, when no one had taken offense.
However, from there, Becerra prohibited B.B. from drawing pictures and giving them to classmates while at school, which Boyle's filing called "a particularly harsh punishment for a first-grade child who loved to draw."
After that, B.B.'s teachers allegedly prohibited B.B. from participating in recess with her classmates for two weeks, forcing her "to sit on a bench and watch her classmates play."
However, despite the significant punishment, the school did not inform B.B.'s parents of the punishment until more than year later.
Upon learning of the school's actions, Boyle filed administrative complaints with the district and demanded an explanation and apology.
The appellate brief does not indicate what the school district's response to Boyle's internal complaints may have been, but called the response "unsatisfactory."
Boyle and the PLF then filed suit in February 2023, accusing the district, Becerra and others of violating her daughter's First Amendment rights, among other counts.
In federal district court, however, Judge Carter sided with the school district, ruling that the district did not violate B.B.'s constitutional rights.
Carter was appointed to the bench by former President Bill Clinton in 1998.
According to court documents, Judge Carter ruled that Becerra was protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity, which generally shields public officials from lawsuits over official actions they took in the course of their official duties.
The judge also said that the drawing did not amount to constitutionally protected speech, because it was outweighed by "M.C.'s right 'to be left alone.'"
B.B.'s attorneys argued the judge also "overemphasized" the children's "ages in holding that B.B.'s innocent speech was not entitled to First Amendment protection."
Further, they said the judge "deferred to local officials in a way that abdicated its duty to supervise public officials' restriction of First Amendment rights."
In their appellate brief, the plaintiffs say the effect of the punishment was to "chill" B.B.'s speech and send a message to all other students that they could similarly be punished for drawing pictures.
Further, they said, school officials could not show that the drawing was disruptive to the learning environment in any way. And they noted neither M.C. nor her parents saw the drawing as offensive, but merely an innocent gesture from a small child.
Because B.B.'s speech was not aggressive or disruptive, Boyle's attorneys say Carter's decision directly conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court's 1969 landmark Tinker decision, which famously stated "that neither students nor teachers 'shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.'"
"The evidence here ... confirms that B.B.'s drawing was innocent and that her classmate, M.C., did not understand the drawing as anything other than a nice gesture," the plaintiffs wrote. "Without evidence showing substantial disruption in school resulting from certain speech, or that particular students were targeted with 'inflammatory' or tortious speech, school officials have no basis to limit a student's 'pure speech.'
"... Overlooking foundational First Amendment law on student speech rights, and relying on a slapdash amalgam of out-of-circuit and overruled authority, the district court held that B.B.'s speech could be restricted simply because she was a young elementary school student."
The Capistrano School District has not yet replied to the filing.