B.V.S., Individually and by His Parents, Jerry Van Staalduine and Catherine Van Staalduine v. Marshalltown Community School District ( 2016 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0947
Filed May 25, 2016
B.V.S., Individually and by his Parents, JERRY VAN
STAALDUINE and CATHERINE VAN STAALDUINE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
vs.
MARSHALLTOWN COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Steven J. Oeth,
Judge.
A former student and his parents appeal the district court’s ruling
concluding the student’s discipline by his school did not violate his free speech
rights. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Barry S. Kaplan and C. Aron Vaughn of Kaplan & Frese, LLP,
Marshalltown, for appellants.
Janice M. Thomas and Mitchell G. Nass, of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor
& Fairgrave, P.C., and Sharon Soorholtz Greer, of Cartwright, Druker & Ryden,
Marshalltown, for appellee.
Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2
DOYLE, Judge.
In May 2014, when B.V.S. was finishing his junior year at Marshalltown
High School (MHS), MHS administrators suspended B.V.S. from participating in
three athletic events for violating Marshalltown Community School District’s
(MCSD) “Good Conduct Policy.” After B.V.S.’s suspension was upheld following
administrative appeals, B.V.S. and his parents filed suit against MCSD arguing
the school had improperly disciplined B.V.S. for his speech in violation of the
Iowa Constitution and the United States Constitution. At this time, B.V.S. had
finished his junior year but had not yet served his suspension. B.V.S. and his
parents requested the court “stay and enjoin” the school “from enforcing the
suspension.” Following a hearing, the district court denied the request for an
injunction. Our supreme court denied their application for interlocutory appeal
and request for a stay. B.V.S. and his parents later amended their petition
seeking a ruling that the school had violated B.V.S.’s state constitutional rights
and statutory rights under Iowa Code section 280.22 (2013) and requesting the
court to instruct MCSD to remove information from its records regarding his
alleged violation of the conduct code.
The matter proceeded to trial in March 2015, when B.V.S. was concluding
his senior year at MHS. B.V.S. testified his grade point average was 3.54, he
was a member of the National Honor Society, and he planned on attending the
university of his choice in the fall of 2015. B.V.S. acknowledged he had already
served his suspension, but he requested the court “clear [his] name” and require
the school to destroy any record of the disciplinary action. MCSD administrators
testified the records involved in B.V.S.’s disciplinary proceedings were not part of
3
his school file and were not something that had or would be disclosed to any
colleges or universities. Ultimately, the district court entered its ruling finding the
MCSD administrators did not violate B.V.S.’s constitutional right to free speech
when it disciplined him, and the court denied the relief requested by B.V.S. and
his parents. B.V.S. and his parents appeal the ruling.
“Courts exist to decide cases, not academic questions of law.” Homan v.
Branstad, 864 N.W.2d 321, 328 (Iowa 2015). We “will generally decline to hear a
case when, because of changed circumstances, the court’s decision will no
longer matter,” i.e., that our opinion would not have any force and effect with
regard to the underlying controversy. Id.; see also Clarke Cty. Reservoir
Comm’n v. Robins, 862 N.W.2d 166, 173 (Iowa 2015) (“Mootness is not a
question of power but rather one of restraint.”). “It is our duty on our own motion
to refrain from determining moot questions.” Homan, 864 N.W.2d at 328 (citation
omitted). Here, at the time of trial, B.V.S. had already served his suspension,
and there is no evidence there is any permanent record maintained by MCSD
that would disclose he was disciplined in 2014. There is no evidence the matter
derailed or negatively impacted B.V.S.’s college plans. Thus, the underlying
controversy no longer exists and is therefore moot. See id.
Nevertheless, an exception to the mootness rule exists, allowing courts to
consider moot issues if the issues are “matters of public importance” that are
“likely to recur.” Id. at 330 (citation omitted). In determining whether we should
review a moot but likely to persist issue of “public importance,” we consider the
following four factors: “(1) the private or public nature of the issue; (2) the
desirability of an authoritative adjudication to guide public officials in their future
4
conduct; (3) the likelihood of the recurrence of the issue; and (4) the likelihood
the issue will recur yet evade appellate review.” Id. (citation omitted). Obviously,
a school’s restriction of a student’s speech is an important issue. See, e.g.,
Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 410 (2007) (holding that the First Amendment
did not require a school’s principal to tolerate at a school’s event a student’s
banner bearing the phrase “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” because it was reasonable
for the principal “to conclude the banner promoted illegal drug use—in violation of
established school policy”); Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260,
276 (1988) (holding that a principal did not infringe students’ First Amendment
rights by censoring articles in a high school newspaper); Bethel Sch. Dist. No.
403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 686 (1986) (holding that the First Amendment did
not guarantee a student’s right to deliver a sexually explicit speech at an
assembly); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 507, 513
(1969) (establishing that, “where students in the exercise of First Amendment
rights collide with the rules of the school authorities,” students’ free speech rights
“may not be suppressed unless school officials reasonably conclude that it will
materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school”); Bell v.
Itawamba Cty. Sch. Bd., 799 F.3d 379, 383 (5th Cir. 2015) (holding student’s
First Amendment right to free speech was not violated when the school
disciplined him after he posted his rap recording, which threatened two of his
teachers, to his public Facebook profile page and later YouTube); Lange v.
Diercks, No. 11-0191, 2011 WL 5515152, at *1-12 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2011)
(interpreting Iowa’s Student Free Expression Law codified at Iowa Code section
280.22 and finding school improperly reprimanded journalism teacher for
5
allowing students to publish what the administration viewed as inappropriate
articles because the articles’ “content at issue did not fit within the narrow
categories of expression prohibited by section 280.22(2)”). However, we do not
find there is a likelihood of the recurrence of the unique issues of this case, or,
should the unlikely events again arise, that the issues would evade appellate
review. Consequently, we decline to find that an exception exists to justify our
hearing an otherwise moot case. See Palo v. Iowa Bd. of Regents, No. 14-1540,
2015 WL 4233055, at *3-4 (Iowa Ct. App. July 9, 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss
the appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.