Middle school student banned from handing out pro-life flyers in school halls

Sex education and contraceptive pamphlets on the health clinic door at King Middle School in Portland, Maine Photo by Cheryl Senter, AP

By Taylor Engler

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday, October 7, that a Michigan middle school did not violate a student’s free speech rights when it banned him from distributing pro-life flyers in the school hallway, according to an
article on the First Amendment Center Web site.

The student, referred to in court papers as M.A.L. or Michael, was prohibited by Jefferson Middle School in Monroe, Mich. from distributing pro-life flyers in the hallways in January 2007. The school created the ban, citing their literature-distribution policy which requires official approval of handouts as well as time and place limitations. Michael and his parents sued Jefferson in federal court on January 24, 2007, according to the article.

Michael was 14-years old when he joined the Pro Life Group of Silent Solidarity in October 2006. The group is part of the national organization, Stand True, and promotes anti-abortion awareness. Michael wanted to hand out the flyers for the Stand True national protest day on January 31, 2007, the article said.

In court on January 30, U.S. District Judge Victoria A. Roberts struck down the ban and Jefferson’s literature-distribution policy, citing the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. The Tinker case was brought to court by students banned from wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The court ruled that the school could not prove the armbands caused significant disruption of learning and set a standard that public schools, in order to prohibit student’s free speech, must prove that the expression will disrupt the school operations or endanger other’s rights, according to the article.

Two months after the original M.A.L. ruling, in March 2007, Judge Roberts enforced a permanent injunction on Jefferson, prohibiting the school from enforcing its literature-distribution policy, the article said. Jefferson appealed to the 6th Circuit, arguing that the policy did not prohibit the expression of free speech as in Tinker, but instead regulated when and where speech could occur, the article said.

The 6th Circuit sided with Jefferson on October 7, 2008, citing that the regulations on Michael’s flyers did not prohibit his free speech, but merely delegated the speech to a more appropriate forum (on bulletin boards and in the cafeteria) than the school hallway. The court said that the literature-distribution policy was “view-point neutral” and simply sought to “prevent hallway clutter and congestion,” the article said.

Michael is likely to appeal, the article stated.