Updates on cases, laws, and other topics of interest to local governments

Subscribe by Email

Enter your Email:
Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Subscribe in a Reader

Follow Municipal Minute on Twitter


Blog comments do not reflect the views or opinions of the Author or Ancel Glink. Some of the content may be considered attorney advertising material under the applicable rules of certain states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please read our full disclaimer

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Principal Has Immunity For Refusing to Allow Distribution of Candy with Religious Message

Being a teacher is tough. Between unruly students, angry parents, and seemingly unceasing budget cuts, teachers have enough to keep them awake at night. Thankfully, being sued might not be among them. A recent case out of the Fifth Circuit, Morgan v. Swanson, was a major victory for teachers and school officials. 

In this case, an elementary school in Texas had an in-school party during the holiday season. A parent and his son brought candy canes as gifts for the students. The candy canes, however, had a religious message attached to them. When the school’s principal saw the religious message, she told the parent and his son that they could not distribute them. The principal explained that the school had a policy against distributing materials with religious messages.

The father and son sued the principal, alleging that she had violated their First Amendment rights. Both the Fifth Circuit and district court dismissed the case, finding that the principal had immunity from the lawsuit because the law regarding this area of the First Amendment was too complicated for her to know how to handle religious messages at school parties. The court held that teachers and school officials are shielded from liability in lawsuits unless their conduct is “clearly established” as unconstitutional. The court acknowledged that teachers have a difficult job, and that the courts should not make it more so by exposing them to liability for doing things that they did not even know were illegal.

Without a doubt, this case is a victory for school officials. However, it also begs the question: what conduct is “clearly established” as unconstitutional? Forcing a student to say the pledge of allegiance would be a safe bet. But what about issues that are a closer call? What if school officials allow students to sing a disproportionate number of Christmas songs at a holiday program? It is difficult to predict exactly, but based on this holding, it seems as though courts are willing to give teachers the benefit of the doubt. 

Post Authored by Matthew DiCianni, Ancel Glink


Post a Comment