For those of us who are fascinated by the First Amendment and its applications in an education setting, two recent developments in Free Speech school litigation are worth noting. While both cases are outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the topics addressed are faced by districts in communities across the country.
Roosevelt UFSD v. Wantagh UFSD et al. (Eastern Dist. N.Y. March 2026)
Background Facts and Claims: Roosevelt Union Free School District sued two rival school districts, alleging that its student body had been exposed to racial harassment by the defendant schools (including slurs, spitting, booing, and a mob-like rush of the court) at two basketball playoff games in February 2023. Roosevelt sought monetary damages, alleging Equal Protection violations, as well as various claims under New York State law. The crux of their argument was that the plaintiffs had a pattern of not preventing racial discrimination.
The case was dismissed because the named Plaintiffs did not have Legal Standing:
• The five individual student plaintiffs identified as class representatives by the School District did not allege that they were present at the games, and accordingly, the Court found that they were not eligible to serve as representatives of the student victims of the racial harassment.
• Likewise, although the District Superintendent and Board President were listed as defendants, both were found to be inadequate because neither had been to the game and suffered no injury personally.
• More significantly, the Court held that the District itself and the District’s Board of Education could not sue on behalf of the students and alleged no injury to themselves. The Court’s reasoning was that associational standing (where an organization stands on behalf of individuals) is not permitted for claims based on § 1983 in the Second Circuit, and a School District, which is not a real person, could not maintain a claim under a theory of Equal Protection. We note that associational standing is permitted in the Third Circuit, where the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is located. A Court in the Third Circuit could reach a different result from the Court in Roosevelt.
Takeaway: All claims were dismissed without prejudice, not because the claims were not serious, but because the plaintiff did not show a concrete, particularized injury, which is a fundamental requirement for jurisdiction.
Schools cannot control all misbehavior during their events, especially when trying to effect the misbehavior of others over whom they have no legal authority to control.
H.C. v. Effingham County School District (S.D. Ga. 2026)
Background Facts and Claims: This newly filed action involves a fifth grader who was ordered to remove three rainbow pride buttons from their clothing. The principal said that she “did not want to spread the wrong message around.” The school later classified the buttons as “political symbols” prohibited under the district’s Dress Code Policy. Different buttons of anime cartoons were not removed. Birthday photos of the student with the buttons were rejected, but photos of the student wearing also-prohibited face paint were approved.
Plaintiff sued for violations of their First Amendment Rights, as well as a Fourteenth Amendment Violation, on the basis that a rule banning political messages generally is vague and unconstitutional because it leads to arbitrary enforcement.
Anticipated Outcome: The plaintiff seeks a declaration that the policy is unconstitutional. Were this matter filed in the Third Circuit, we expect that the Court would apply the Tinker substantial disruption test, under which student speech is protected unless it causes a substantial disruption. To prevail, the plaintiff will have to prove that no disruption occurred due to the buttons and that the buttons do not represent any history of unrest. Courts have also been skeptical of standardless restrictions, such as bans on “political messages of any kind,” because they invite viewpoint discrimination.
Although there is yet to be a decision, schools will have a hard time showing that these buttons caused a substantial disruption of the educational program.
Bottom Line For Schools
Issues of expression and free speech by school employees, students, and community members will continue to be a source of controversy. Schools are advised to review their policies on student speech and expression with their solicitors to understand what student speech is protected by the First Amendment and what speech is not.
KingSpry’s Education Law Team is keeping abreast of these developments and is prepared to assist school entities in developing policies as standards and laws evolve.
School Law Bullets are a publication of the KingSpry Education Law Practice Group. They are meant to be informational and do not constitute legal advice. Should your school have a question related to student speech, please contact your local legal counsel or one of the Education attorneys at KingSpry.
