In July 2024, Parents Defending Education (PDE) filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in B.B. v. Capistrano Unified School District. B.B., a first grader, wrote “any life” on her own drawing that said “Black Lives Mat[t]er” to show her belief that all human lives are equally valuable. The California school district punished her and banned her from drawing again. A federal trial court upheld the punishment, deferring to school officials who called the speech hurtful and unprotected.
The brief argues the trial court was wrong for two reasons:
- The school punished B.B. for her viewpoint. The district said her message could be “racially insensitive” or “hurt[ful].” But punishing speech because it might offend is viewpoint discrimination, especially when the district promoted one side of the debate (“Black Lives Matter”) while punishing the other (“All Lives Matter”).
- The school didn’t meet the Tinker standard. Under Tinker v. Des Moines, a school can limit student speech only if it would seriously disrupt schoolwork or invade the rights of others. The district offered no evidence that B.B.’s drawing harmed anyone. Hurt feelings or discomfort are not enough, even when speech is deeply offensive.
For either reason, PDE urged the appeals court to reverse.
Read the full brief below:
