Truth v. Kent School District’s Empirical Analysis
542 F.3d 634 · 2008
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2023 · most notably Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of Univ. of Cal., Hastings College of Law v. Martinez (2010), Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California v. Martinez (2010)
7 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (§ 901 of the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972) · 20 U.S.C. § 4071 (The Equal Access Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc · City of Los Angeles v. Lyons · Board of the County Commissioners of Bryan County v. Brown · Ward v. Rock Against Racism
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the state restricts access to a limited public forum in a way that interferes with a group’s speech or expressive association, however, we apply the lesser standard of scrutiny, even if the same burden on a group’s rights outside a limited public forum would be subject to strict scrutiny. See Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 829-30 , 115 S.Ct. 2510 (applying limited public forum analysis to a university policy that excluded a group’s access to the school’s student activity fund, thereby preventing it from publishing a newspaper). To hold otherwise would accord an act of “pure speech” such as publishing a newspaper-the core of what the First Amendment protects-less protection than an act of expressive association. We find no support for such a proposition, and Truth has identified none. [Footnote omitted.] Truth, of course, has the option of operating as a ... group on school grounds, see 524 F.3d at 963 , and as such would be able to restrict its membership unfettered by the school’s nondiscrimination policy. If Truth wants the additional benefits that come from participation in the ASB program, however, Truth must comply with the school’s reasonable, viewpoint-neutral rules.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Whether SIU [the school in questionj’s student organization forum is a public, designated public, or non-public forum is an inquiry that will require further factual development, and that is a task properly left for the district court. But even assuming at this state of the litigation that SIU’s student organization forum is a non-public forum-making the lowest level of scrutiny applicable — we believe CLS has the better of the argument. * * * Whether the policy is reasonable in light of the purposes the forum serves cannot be determined on this record because we do not know precisely what those purposes are (we could speculate, but that would be inappropriate). We need not reach this aspect of the inquiry, however, given our conclusion that CLS has demonstrated a likelihood of success on its claim that SIU is applying its policy in a viewpoint discriminatory fashion. SIU has singled out CLS for derecognition. The record may be spartan, but every part of it right now points to success for CLS.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“There is no question that acts of expressive association are protected forms of speech under the First Amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.