Frudden v. Pilling, No. 15-15448 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit against defendants, challenging on First Amendment grounds, a school uniform policy that required their two minor children to wear shirts or sweatshirts with a logo consisting of the name of the school, a stylized picture of a gopher (the school mascot), and the motto "Tomorrow’s Leaders." Given the failure of the Ninth Circuit's en banc call, the panel held that the uniform policy—both the motto requirement and the exemption—violated the First Amendment. The panel reasoned that there can hardly be interests more compelling than fostering children's educational achievement and providing a safe and supportive educational environment. However, requiring students to display the motto "Tomorrow's Leaders" on their uniforms was not narrowly tailored to serve those interests. The panel held that the Individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the applicable law was not sufficiently clear to put them on notice that the uniform policy would violate the First Amendment. However, because the Institutional Defendants were not individuals, they were not protected by qualified immunity. Accordingly, the panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to individual defendants and reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to institutional defendants, and remanded in an action challenging, on First Amendment grounds, an elementary school’s uniform policy. Plaintiff challenged a school uniform that required his children to wear shirts or sweatshirts with a logo consisting FRUDDEN V. PILLING 3 of the name of the school, a stylized picture of a gopher (the school mascot), and the motto “Tomorrow’s Leaders.” An exemption from the policy allowed students to wear the uniform of a nationally recognized youth organization on regular meeting days of that organization. In a prior appeal, a three-judge panel held that the district court should have analyzed the motto requirement and the exemption under strict, rather than intermediate, scrutiny and reversed the district court’s decision and remanded. Frudden v. Pilling (Frudden II), 742 F.3d 1199, 1204–05 (9th Cir. 2014). On remand, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. On appeal from the district court’s summary judgment, the panel disagreed with the prior panel that reversed and remanded the district court’s decision in Frudden II. The panel believed that intermediate rather than strict scrutiny should be applied to the uniform policy. The panel’s sua sponte en banc call to reverse the prior decision, however, failed to receive a majority vote of the active members of the Court. Given the failure of the en banc call, the panel considered itself bound by the holding of the prior three- judge panel. So bound, the panel held that the uniform policy—both the motto requirement and the exemption— violated the First Amendment. The panel held that although there can hardly be interests more compelling than fostering children’s educational achievement and providing a safe and supportive educational environment, requiring students to display the motto “Tomorrow’s Leaders” on their school uniforms was not narrowly tailored to serve those interests. The exemption for the uniforms of nationally recognized youth organizations also failed strict scrutiny. 4 FRUDDEN V. PILLING The panel held that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the applicable law was not sufficiently clear to put them on notice that the uniform policy would violate the First Amendment. However, because the institutional defendants were not individuals, they were not protected by qualified immunity.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.