Student T-Shirt with a QR Code
At a public high school in Orlando, a 16-year-old student wears a T-shirt to class reading "Our Voices Matter" with a QR code linking to a petition criticizing the district's book-review policy. The principal had issued a memo two weeks earlier banning "political messages" on clothing after a disruption at a school board meeting. The student refuses to remove the shirt and is given three days of in-school suspension. The student's parent contacts the ACLU. The school points to the dress code and says the QR code could be scanned during class time, distracting students. There was no fight or walkout; two students scanned the code and discussed it quietly in the hallway. The school also notes that the shirt was worn on a day when a school board candidate was visiting. The student sues in federal court.
1. Apply the standard the Supreme Court uses for student expression in public schools. Is the suspension constitutional?
Read the worked answer
The suspension likely violates the First Amendment. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court held that students retain free-expression rights and that schools may restrict personal expression only when it would materially and substantially disrupt school activities or invade the rights of others. This shirt is personal political speech, not school-sponsored speech, so Hazelwood's lower standard does not apply. The record shows no substantial disruption: two students scanned the code and talked quietly, and there was no fight or walkout. A general ban on "political messages" is overbroad because it restricts expression based on viewpoint rather than on any demonstrated disruption. The candidate's visit does not by itself create disruption. The school could restrict speech that is lewd or promotes illegal drug use, but this message does not fall into those categories. The school must show more than discomfort or speculation about distraction.
2. Would the result change if the student's shirt displayed a message that a reasonable observer would interpret as a threat of violence? Explain.
Read the worked answer
Yes. True threats are not protected by the First Amendment, and schools may act when speech reasonably forecasts substantial disruption or threatens safety. The key question is objective: would a reasonable person interpret the message as a threat, given the context? A vague political slogan such as "Our Voices Matter" is not a threat. A message suggesting violence against a person or group could be treated differently, and the school could discipline the student after an appropriate inquiry. The school still cannot rely on a blanket political-message ban; it must tie its action to the threatening nature of the speech. The analysis is fact-specific, so the school should document what the message said and how a reasonable observer would understand it. If the threat is real, the suspension would likely be upheld; if it is only offensive or political, Tinker protects it.