Tom wore a t-shirt depicting cartoons that ridiculed a religion to school. The principal forced Tom to remove the shirt, violating his free speech rights. Teachers were told to kick out students describing the shirt. When Tom described his shirt, his teacher kicked him out, again violating his rights. The teacher posted criticism of this policy on Facebook and was suspended, which also violated his free speech rights. While schools can restrict disruptive speech, Tom's speech did not cause disruption, so his and his teacher's rights were infringed upon.

1. MEMORANDUM
TO: Professor John Truong
FROM: Sahar Saqib
RE: Gregson, et al. v. Bloomfield County School District, First Amendment rights.
DATE: October 9th , 2015
ISSUES
1. Did Tom’s school violate his First Amendment rights by forcing him to remove his t-shirt
depicting cartoons ridiculing the So-No-Wonder religion and reading “Free Media”?
2. Did the school violate Tom’s First Amendment rights by instructing teachers via email to
throw him and other students out of class for describing Tom’s t-shirt?
3. Did the school violate the teacher’s First Amendment rights in disciplining him for
posting his views on Facebook about being forced to kick his student out of class?
SHORT ANSWER
1. Yes, Tom can prevail because his school violated his First Amendment rights by forcing
him to hide the cartoon and text on his shirt. The Supreme Court held that both teachers
and students’ freedom of speech rights are protected within school grounds, and so
forcing Tom to hide the message on his shirt violates his First Amendment rights.
2. Yes, Bloomfield County School District violated Tom’s First Amendment rights by
requiring teachers to throw him and any other student outside of class for describing
Tom’s t-shirt.

2. 3. Yes, Tom’s teacher’s free speech rights under the First Amendment are violated by his
suspension by his employer for his Facebook post since he acted in the capacity of a
teacher on duty and spoke of a matter of public concern.
FACTS
Tom Gregson is a student at Bloomfield County School District. Tom is known to engage in
debate of free expression on controversial, political and religious issues. The School has a
diverse community of students and teachers, with ten of the students at Bloomfield belonging to
the ‘So-No-Wonder’ religion. Since January 1, 2015, extremists of all religions, including the
‘So-No-Wonder’ religion, attacked media outlets all around the world. The slogan “Free Media”
arose as the public battle cry of the inhibition of free speech in the face of violence.
When Tom learned of the controversy surrounding the cartoons, he wanted to raise awareness of
the issue in school. He created a t-shirt online that read “Free Media” and displayed one of the
cartoons that offended the ‘So-No-Wonder’ religion. The next day, Tom wore the t-shirt and
stood outside the school gates until the principal called Tom into the administration offices and
demanded of him to remove his shirt. He was threatened with suspension, and so agreed to wear
the shirt inside out. The principal circulated a note to the teachers to “kick student(s) who …
show or describe the cartoon out of class… if a teacher does not follow this request then
discipline would be a real possibility.”
Tom’s teacher told him he was not allowed to discuss the topic in class, but Tom began
describing his shirt. The teacher kicked Tom out of his class. Shortly afterwards, the teacher
posted on his Facebook that he had been forced to kick a student out of class and shamed the

3. school for threatening him and forcing him to silence the discussion. Tom was suspended for two
weeks and the teacher was suspended for the remainder of the semester.
DISCUSSION
For the claims of both Tom and his teacher against Bloomfield County District School under 42
U.S.C §1983 to be successful, three legal issues must be addressed. First, Tom must show that
the school violated his First Amendment rights by forcing him to remove his “Free Media” t-
shirt. Second, he can show that his First Amendment rights were violated once again by his being
thrown out of class for describing his t-shirt. Lastly, Tom’s teacher can successfully bring a
claim against the school for disciplining him for his Facebook post and violating his First
Amendment rights. He can do this by proving that the post was a matter of public concern and
that he posted it in the capacity of a teacher.
I. The infringement of Tom’s rights by the forceful removal of his “controversial”
shirt
The School violated Tom’s First Amendment rights when the principal forced him to remove his
t-shirt and wear it inside out. The Supreme Court held that “First Amendment rights … in light
of the special characteristics of the school environment are available to teachers and students”.
Tinker v Des Moines Independent Comm. School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969). In Tinker, the
students wore arm bands to school as a symbol of protest against the Vietnam War and this was
held to be “entirely divorced from actually or potentially disruptive conduct” and “closely akin to
‘pure speech’”. Id., at 504.
The Supreme Court stated that ‘children do not assuredly shed their constitutional rights at the
schoolhouse gate.’ Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 406 (2007.) (citing Veronia School Dist. v.

4. Acton, 516 U.S. 646, 655-56 (1995)). This creates a distinction between speech made inside and
outside of school.
The Supreme Court in Tinker, supra, held that if a student can express his opinions on
controversial topics “without ‘materially and substantially interfer(ing) with the requirements of
appropriate discipline in the operation of the school’, and without colliding with the rights of
others”, it will find such a statement as within the free speech protection of the First Amendment.
In contrast, a student cannot feel free to express his opinions when it “materially disrupts
classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.” Tinker, 393 U.S. at
505. Furthermore, the Tinker Court found that free speech is not a right that only “exists in
principle but not in fact” Id., 513. For it to be shown to exist in fact, it therefore must be shown
in practice.
In wearing his “Free Media” shirt to school, Tom was exercising his right to free speech. It was
not “potentially disruptive” as it did not incite any violence and the school did not have a history
of violence or disruption. The school also has not provided any clear guideline on what
constitutes ‘destructive behavior’.
Tom’s claims under 42 U.S.C §1983 will be successful because he was forced to remove his
“Free Media” shirt while in school and that is against his First Amendment rights of freedom of
speech.

5. II. The violation of Tom’s First Amendment rights when he was kicked out of his
class
Tom will succeed against his school under 42 U.S.C §1983 because the school violated his First
Amendment rights when the school had him kicked out of his class for describing his t-shirt in
class.
The Supreme Court in Tinker devised a test for when a student may voice his or her opinions in
class, and when they may not. “When he is… on the campus… he may express his opinions,
even on controversial subjects like the conflict in Vietnam”, Tinker, 393 U.S. at 513, but only if
he does so without “materially and substantially interfere(ing) with the requirements of
appropriate discipline in the operation of the school” Id., at 504.
In O’Neal v Falcon 668 F.Supp.2d 984 (W.D. Tex. 2009), the court recognized that “(s)tudents
do not lose entirely their right to express themselves as individuals in the classroom” and “(i)t is
only when the decision to censor… student expression has no valid educational purpose that the
First Amendment is so directly and sharply implicated”. Id., at 986.
Tom’s description of his shirt did not “materially and substantially interfere with the
requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school” Tinker 393 U.S., at 504.
Furthermore Tom’s school did not have a history of violence or hate crimes. Instead, they
encouraged open debate among the students.
Students in Farmington R-7 School District in B.W.A v Farmington, supra, wore t-shirts
depicting the Confederate flag in a school with a long history of hateful racist crimes. Tom’s
school has no such history of violent crimes and so lacks a basis on which to place the ban on his
t-shirt.

6. Tom’s freedom of speech and expression as found in the First Amendment and as protected in 42
U.S.C §1983 have been violated, due to his speech not qualifying as “disruptive”. Tom will
therefore be successful in bringing a claim against his school for violating his First Amendment
rights by impeding his speech and kicking him out of class for describing his “Free Media” t-
shirt.
III. Tom’s teacher’s free speech rights violation when he was disciplined for his
Facebook post
Tom’s teacher has a claim against the School for reprimanding him for his public Facebook post
on his view about the policy that required him to kick Tom or any other student out of his class.
The Supreme Court’s holding in Tinker also applies in Tom’s teacher’s case. The Court provided
that “First Amendment rights … in light of the special characteristics of the school environment
are available to teachers and students.” Tinker 393 U.S., at 503. The Tinker Court introduced the
test of “materially and substantially disrupt(ing) the work and discipline of the school” as the
basis for school discipline conducted by school officials.
The Supreme Court stated that ‘children do not assuredly shed their constitutional rights at the
schoolhouse gate.’ Morse, 551 U.S., at 406. Similarly, the persuasive authority of the Supreme
Court of Minnesota’s case, Tatro v University of Minnesota, 816 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. 2012) is
relevant to Tom’s teacher’s case. The Tatro case only involved students but the legal principle in
the holding expressly extends the standard onto teachers as well.
The Tinker Court makes no difference in the application of the rule towards students and
teachers and treats them equally, granting them the same rights to practice free speech inside and
out of school. Tom’s teacher did not leave his constitutional rights outside of the school gates

7. and did not deserve to have the use of his free speech rights to be the cause of his disciplining
and suspension.
Tom’s teacher posted on Facebook “after class” and mentioned that he had “just” had to throw a
student out of his class. This supports the argument that he had made the comment during school
hours. Because the comment that he posted addressed the principal’s email and how he had to
conduct himself during school hours, he posted the material in the capacity of a teacher on duty.
His post was also a matter of public concern and not simply educational material.
CONCLUSION
Tom will be able to acquire the remedy that he seeks against Bloomfield County School for both
instances of his case. For being forced to remove his t-shirt reading “Free Media” and being
kicked out of class for describing his t-shirt, his school violated his First Amendment rights of
freedom of speech and expression. There was no history of violence in his school for him to be
reasonably restricted in his speech. It was normal for the students to engage in open discussions,
and the acts of wearing and describing his “Free Media” t-shirt could not be reasonably foreseen
to cause any violence. Tom’s teacher will be successful in his claim against the school for
wrongly suspending him for the rest of the semester and disciplining him for posting his
comments on Facebook about having to kick his students out of class. Tom’s teacher acted in the
capacity of a teacher and posted on a matter of public concern, and so his post will be protected
as free speech under the First Amendment.

8. Overall comment: Good effort. You applied the IRAC rule. Your case discussion could
have been a bit more thorough. Good improvement from the "draft" CM.
Format: 2/2
BB: 1.5/2
Analysis: 10.5/13
Other: 2/2
Total: 16/19