The child's parents sued the school district, in Baldwinsville in central New York State, on the ground that the school's response to their son's artwork violated his right to free speech and amounted to official discrimination against religion.
The suit was dismissed by the federal district court in Syracuse but reinstated last October by the federal appeals court in Manhattan. That court held that the school's action was suggestive of antireligious "viewpoint discrimination" that could be justified only by an "overriding" government interest.
The appeals court sent the case back to the district court for further examination of whether there was discrimination and, if so, whether it might be justified, for example by the need to avoid the appearance of religious endorsement. The prospect of further proceedings in the case, which concerns events that occurred nearly seven years ago, meant that the Baldwinsville Central School District could not present the Supreme Court with a final judgment.
While the justices usually turn down cases that are still under review, the school district argued in this case that the appeals court had reached a legal conclusion on which the lower federal courts are divided and that needed the Supreme Court's attention, regardless of future developments in that dispute. The justices offered no comment in refusing the case, Baldwinsville Central School District v. Peck, No. 05-899.
The Supreme Court has not directly addressed this issue. Nor has it examined students' free-speech rights in elementary school. Its infrequent rulings on student speech have been in cases from high schools and universities. In 1988, the court ruled in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier that a public high school principal's censorship of the student newspaper was justified because the paper was part of the curriculum and the school's control over its content was "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."
In the Baldwinsville case, Judge Guido Calabresi of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said the case came "within the core of Hazelwood's framework." Further, Judge Calabresi said the question of whether the Supreme Court meant to give school administrators latitude to single out particular viewpoints for censorship was "anything but clear."
Nonetheless, his opinion for the appeals court concluded that "a manifestly viewpoint-discriminatory restriction on school-sponsored speech" would be "unconstitutional even if reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical interests," unless justified by a "sufficiently compelling state interest."
The school argued in its Supreme Court appeal that the appeals court misunderstood the Hazelwood decision. The federal appeals courts in Boston and Denver have concluded that neither the precedent nor the Constitution required that the regulation of school-sponsored speech be neutral as to viewpoint.
The decision "robs teachers of the appropriate and necessary control of their classrooms" and will encourage "frivolous lawsuits," the school district told the court, adding that schools were surely free to sponsor speech against drug use or irresponsible sex without also presenting the opposite point of view.
The kindergartner's parents, Joanne and Kenley Peck, were represented by Liberty Counsel, a legal organization based in Maitland, Fla., that describes itself on its Web site as committed to "restoring the culture one case at a time."
These were among the court's other actions on Monday:
Sentencing Error
The court overturned a 10-year sentence for a convicted bank robber on the ground that the federal appeals court in New Orleans had improperly counted a previous narcotics conviction as placing him in the "career offender" category. That designation accounted for as many as four years of the sentence for the defendant, Jeffrey J. Salinas.
Under federal sentencing law, a previous "controlled substance offense" can make an offender eligible for a higher sentence. But simple possession does not count as such an offense. Rather, the government must prove intent to manufacture or sell the illegal drugs.
In this case, Salinas v. United States, No. 05-8400, the previous offense was for simple possession. Consequently, Mr. Salinas is entitled to be resentenced, the court said in an unsigned two-paragraph opinion.
What made the case more than routinely interesting was that the government acknowledged the sentencing error in its brief to the court, yet argued that "further review is unwarranted" because two earlier robbery convictions could also serve to classify Mr. Salinas a career offender. Initially, the government declined to respond to Mr. Salinas's appeal, but the justices directed the solicitor general's office to file a brief.
Prison Credit
The court turned down two appeals challenging the way the Federal Bureau of Prisons calculates the "good time" credits that well-behaved prisoners are entitled to every year. The bureau calculates the credit not on the basis of the inmates' sentences, but on the time they are actually serving as the credits accumulate.
A result is that thousands of federal inmates, entitled by law to a reduction of up to 54 days every year for good behavior, actually receive credit for only about 47 days.
The order denying review in the two cases, Moreland v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 05-8268, and O'Donald v. Johns, No. 05-8504, was accompanied by a statement by Justice John Paul Stevens. "Despite its technical character," Justice Stevens said, "the question has sufficient importance to merit further study, not only by judges but by other government officials, as well."