California Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Student Disciplined for Altering Black Lives Matter Artwork

A California appeals court has sided with a young student who created artwork featuring the phrase “any life” and included thumbprints from her classmates beneath “Black Lives Matter” during a school activity. This artwork led to her being disciplined, a decision now overturned by the appeals court.

Initially, a lower court had supported the actions of Jesus Becerra, the principal of Viejo Elementary School in Mission Viejo, California.

In 2021, a student referred to as “B.B.” in legal documents, who is white, crafted the drawing and presented it to a black peer, “M.C.,” following a classroom session about the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

The situation escalated after M.C. took the picture home, prompting M.C.’s mother to express her concerns to the school. Chelsea Boyle, B.B.’s mother, claimed that Principal Becerra labeled the drawing as racist, compelled B.B. to apologize, and restricted her from participating in recess for two weeks.

In response, Boyle initiated legal action against the school, asserting that B.B.’s First Amendment rights had been violated.

The lower court, however, had previously ruled against this claim, stating that the drawing did not constitute protected speech and that it infringed upon the black student’s right to personal privacy.

But the higher court, using the landmark Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case that established that high school students have the right to protest the Vietnam War, decided to vacate the decision.

“This case presents an important issue: to what extent is elementary students’ speech protected by the First Amendment?” the three-judge panel wrote in a per curiam opinion.

“Applying the criteria set forth in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District , we hold that elementary students’ speech is protected by the First Amendment, the age of the students is a relevant factor under Tinker , and schools may restrict students’ speech only when the restriction is reasonably necessary to protect the safety and well-being of its students. Because the Tinker analysis raises genuine issues of material fact, we vacate the grant of summary judgment and remand,” they added.

The lower court judge, U.S. District Judge David Carter, a Bill Clinton appointee, argued that age was a factor in his decision.

“Thus, the downsides of regulating speech there is not as significant as it is in high schools, where students are approaching voting age and controversial speech could spark conducive conversation,” Carter wrote.

But the higher court said age is a relevant but “non-dispositive” factor.

“Disagreeing with the district court’s determination that the drawing was not protected by the First Amendment, the panel held that elementary students’ speech is protected by the First Amendment, Tinker applies in the elementary student speech context, and elementary students’ young age is a relevant, but non-dispositive, factor,” the panel wrote.

Boyle celebrated the higher court’s decision.

“This isn’t just a win for my daughter. It strengthens constitutional protections for students across the country,” she wrote in an Instagram post.

“Turns out…The Constitution doesn’t have an age limit,” she added.

Her attorneys followed suit.

“Today’s ruling affirms what should be obvious: Students don’t lose their constitutional rights just because they’re young,” Caleb Trotter, senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, said in a release published online. “The Constitution protects every student’s right to free expression. No child should be punished for expressing a well-intentioned message to a friend.”

The case will now go back to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, per Courthouse News.