B.B., a minor by and through her mother, Chelsea Boyle v. Capistrano Unified School District; Jesus Becerra, an individual in his individual and official capacities; Cleo Victa, an individual in her individual and official capacities
March 10, 2026·8:23-cv-00306-·Published·By Aisha Johnson
The Ninth Circuit vacated a district court's grant of summary judgment for a school principal who disciplined a first-grade student for a drawing. The panel held that elementary students retain First Amendment protections and that age is a relevant but non-dispositive factor in the Tinker balancing test.
In March two thousand and twenty-one, a first-grade student drew a picture including the phrase Black Lives Matter any life and gave it to an African American classmate. The classmate’s mother expressed concern to the school principal, who spoke to the student and allegedly told her the drawing was inappropriate. The student sued under Section nineteen eighty-three, alleging a First Amendment violation. The district court granted summary judgment for the principal, ruling the drawing was not protected speech.
The court’s reasoning
The panel applied the Tinker balancing test, reaffirming that student speech is protected until it collides with the school’s interest in preventing disruption or protecting other students. The court held that while age is relevant, it is not dispositive, and schools must show their actions were reasonably undertaken to protect student safety. The panel found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the drawing interfered with the recipient’s rights and whether the disciplinary actions were reasonably necessary.
What it means going forward
The case is remanded for further proceedings, requiring the school to meet its burden of proof regarding the necessity of its actions rather than relying on the students’ ages as the sole justification.
