First Amendment Doesn't Protect Student Wearing Black Face Paint: Federal Judge
A federal judge has ruled that a middle school student who wore black paint on his face during a California football game is not protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. The student, referred to as J.A. in court documents, his parents, and his lawyers have failed to demonstrate that wearing the black paint is expressive conduct shielded by the First Amendment, according to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez's ruling on September 30.
Black Paint Not Expressive Conduct
J.A. claimed he applied the paint during the game to show team spirit. However, Judge Lopez stated that this does not meet the standard set in previous rulings. One such ruling from 2019 found that “First Amendment protection is only granted to the act of wearing particular clothing or insignias where circumstances establish that an unmistakable communication is being made,” Lopez wrote.
Insufficient Evidence for First Amendment Protection
Lopez further stated that the current record does not indicate that the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his First Amendment claim, nor are there any serious questions about it. She noted that while it's possible to find some form of expression in almost every activity a person undertakes, such as walking or meeting friends, this is not sufficient to bring the activity within the protection of the First Amendment.
School Suspension and Legal Proceedings
Muirlands Middle School suspended J.A. for two days, stating that he was wearing blackface, even though athletes often use black paint. The school also accused him or his friends of making racial slurs during the October 2023 game. The judge denied a request for a preliminary injunction that would have partly expunged J.A.’s two-day suspension from school records. The final decision in the case has not yet been issued.
Off-Campus Speech and School Punishment
The football game took place at a different school, whose officials reported concerns about the incident to Muirlands Middle School officials. Karin Sweigart, a lawyer with Dhillon Law Group representing J.A. and his parents, pointed out that the Supreme Court ruled just three years ago that schools can only punish students for their off-campus speech in very limited circumstances, which were not present in this case. She argued that there was no disruption that would have justified punishing her client under binding Supreme Court precedent, even if her client had engaged in a racist act, which he did not.
Bottom Line
This case raises important questions about the boundaries of expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment and the extent to which schools can punish students for their off-campus actions. What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you believe the student's use of black paint was a form of expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, or do you agree with the judge's ruling? Share your thoughts and discuss this article with your friends. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is delivered every day at 6pm.
