pylevsouthhadley

**Pyle** v. South Hadley School Committee
(Suffolk S. C. July 1996)

__Plaintiffs__: Jeffrey and Jonathan Pyle sued the School Committee and the interim Superintendent of South Hadley and the principal of South Hadley High School, claiming that the school's dress code violates their freedom of expression as protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Massachusetts G.L.c. 71, & 82. __Defendants:__ The school officials told the students that they could not wear the T-shirts because the school officials deemed the shirts "vulgar."
 * __Facts:__**


 * __Issues/Answers:__** Under Massachusetts law, are public high school students free to engage in any expression they choose, even if deemed "vulgar" by the school as long as it does not cause a disruption at school. In a unanimous decision, the court held that Massachusetts's law protects student's rights to engage in vulgar, non-school-sponsored speech as long as it does not cause a disruption at school. **//Yes//**


 * __Basis/Rational__:**

__Legal Basis__ - Massachusetts law provides: "The rights of students to freedom of expression in the public schools of the commonwealth shall not be abridged, provided that such right shall not cause any disruption or disorder within the school." The state's high court noted that this language is "clear and unambiguous." The statute contains no exception for vulgar or offensive expression that is not disruptive. __Rational__e - "Our legislature is free to grant greater rights to the citizens of this Commonwealth than would otherwise be protected under the U.S. Constitution." (Judge Paul J. Liacos)


 * __Notes:__** A Federal District Court judge granted the plaintiff's motion for an injunction against enforcement of part of the dress code which prohibits the wearing of apparel that "harasses, intimidates, or demeans an individual or group because of sex, color, race, religion, handicap, national origin or sexual orientation." The judge however, upheld the part of the dress code prohibiting students from wearing clothing that "has comments, pictures, slogans, or designs that are obscene, profane, lewd or vulgar."

The plaintiffs appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the ruling on the State law, deferring on the Federal constitutional question, and certified the following question of State law to this court pursuant to S.J.C. 1:03, & 3, 382 Mass. 700 (1981): "Do high school students in public schools have the freedom under M.G.L.c.71 & 82 to engages in non-school-sponsored expression that may reasonably be considered vulgar, but causes no disruption or disorder?"