A federal judge concluded last week that Mesa County Valley School District 51 and three of its administrators did not violate the First Amendment rights of a former student when they imposed minor discipline in response to disruptive behavior.

In the landmark 1969 decision of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the U.S. Supreme Court held that students retain their free speech rights at school unless their conduct substantially interferes with school operations. Relying on that standard, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico found that administrators lawfully reacted to the antagonistic emails and disturbance caused by plaintiff “John Doe.”

“Plaintiff does not dispute that he has a history of confronting teachers,” wrote Domenico in a March 25 order. “And I cannot ignore that Plaintiff does not dispute significant evidence that points toward a potential disruption. Because there is ‘ample undisputed evidence’ that Defendants reasonably forecast substantial disruption, any restrictions of speech were constitutionally permissible under Tinker.”

Doe was a special education student in the district from 2020-2022. He first attended Gateway K-12 School. The principal, Mark Allen, submitted a statement to the court describing the difficult relationship he had with Doe and his parents. Doe and his father “raised their voices,” made “accusations and threats,” and threatened to sue the district. Doe was also allegedly disruptive when he wore a hat with the Confederate flag and a teacher asked him to remove it.

On Feb. 3, he emailed Allen and other staff, saying his math teacher was “in a bad mood and has been giving me dirty looks.” He also complained of unequal treatment. The teacher sent Doe to the office, where he refused to meet with Allen and instead called his parents. The speakerphone conversation was audible throughout the office.

Doe’s parents came to the school and Doe’s father stood “toe-to-toe” with Allen until the principal called for law enforcement. Allen also alleged Doe’s father said he would “kick my ass.”

Eventually, Doe and Allen met about the email, which went without incident. Allen concluded Doe had been disrespectful that day, but his conduct did not warrant suspension.

The following school year, Doe was at Grand Junction High School and he sent an email to Principal Jared Burek and other administrators. Doe repeatedly wrote “shame on you” to individual staff. Burek gave Doe a “time out” as a de-escalation measure.

Doe’s father later filed a federal civil rights complaint encompassing the time out and other incidents. The U.S. Department of Education found that “nothing in the District’s actions or correspondence support the Complainant’s beliefs” of retaliation.

Finally, in May 2022, Doe sent an email to two staff members, again telling them “shame on you” and “I expect an apology.” He also demanded “copies of every report card from this year … by the end of the day.” Finally, he advised them to “respond wisely because you’re on video” and challenged his special education teacher to “prove me wrong.”

As a consequence, Burek and Dean of Students Tom LeFebre asked Doe to rewrite the email in a respectful way. Doe agreed to do so.

Doe then sued the district, Allen, Burek, and LeFebre, alleging they retaliated against him for his constitutionally protected speech.

“This lawsuit is a continuation of the Plaintiff and his parents harassing the Defendants through litigation,” wrote the defendants’ lawyers in seeking to resolve the case in their favor without a trial. “Defendants acted in a manner that sought to teach Plaintiff a method of communicating that was in line with school policy and his own growth as a student. Moreover, the requirement that he communicate appropriately and professionally was necessary to ensure order in the classroom.”

“Plaintiff’s claims are analyzed under the Tinker standard,” responded Doe’s lawyers, “and because Plaintiff’s emails posed no threat of disruption, they were protected by the First Amendment.”

Domenico concluded that, under the Supreme Court’s standard, the defendants acted reasonably to prevent substantial disruption to school operations. For that reason, Doe’s speech was not constitutionally protected.

The defendants also argued that the policy requiring students to communicate respectfully was “content-neutral” and was clearly reasonable even apart from the Tinker standard. Domenico declined to base his decision on that line of argument, but he did not believe content-neutral policies provided an exception to the Supreme Court’s test.

Regardless, he added, “a reasonable jury could find that the punishments in this case were not content neutral.”

While Doe’s case was pending, the Colorado Supreme Court censured one of his attorneys, Igor Raykin, for his conduct while representing Doe. In a meeting with district officials, Raykin repeatedly told a female employee to “shut up,” informed that employee that he wished she “would actually stop working here and go work where you really belong, which is in the gutter,” and cursed in front of Doe and his parents.

“No one — not even Raykin himself — would argue that his behavior met professional standards. He has admitted as much,” wrote then-Justice Melissa Hart.

The case is Doe v. Mesa County Valley School District 51 et al.