10th Cir.

Smith, et al. v. Albany County School District No. 1, et al.

May 4, 2026 ·2:23-CV-00159-KHR ·Panel Decision ·Tymkovich · By Aisha Johnson

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a student and her parents challenging a school district's COVID-19 mask mandate. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state valid claims for compelled speech, retaliation, or due process violations under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / --:--

Background

Grace Smith, a junior at Laramie High School, refused to comply with a district-wide indoor mask mandate in September 2021. After protesting the mandate by holding signs and leading a walkout, she was suspended three times for non-compliance and eventually arrested for trespassing when she refused to leave school grounds. Grace and her parents sued the school board, superintendent, and principal under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging violations of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

The court’s reasoning

The panel reviewed the dismissal de novo and found the plaintiffs failed to meet the pleading standards for their federal claims. For the compelled speech claim, the court held the complaint did not identify any particular or general message that the mask mandate forced Grace to convey. Regarding the retaliation claim, the court found the plaintiffs failed to allege that Grace’s protected walkout was the but-for cause of her suspensions, noting that the complaint itself indicated the suspensions were for refusing to wear a mask. The court also determined that Grace’s refusal to mask was not expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment because an objective observer would not likely discern a message of opposition to compelled speech. Finally, the court held that the district provided adequate procedural due process by giving Grace notice and an opportunity to be heard before suspending her, and that the mandate did not violate substantive due process as it was rationally related to the legitimate government interest of stemming the spread of COVID-19.

The Smiths have alleged no such message.

Page 3

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces that school mask mandates do not inherently constitute compelled speech or unprotected expressive conduct, and that standard disciplinary procedures for student suspensions satisfy constitutional due process requirements.

Play