Frudden v. Pilling Update

No surprise at all attorney Mary Frudden and her husband, represented by lawyer Eugene Volokh, won their appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Gomm uniform case has been remanded to the local court.

The Fruddens will win their separate case before the Nevada Supreme Court. That I am confident will happen.

Today the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a decision made two years ago by U.S. District Court Judge Robert C Jones, who dismissed a suit by parents who objected to Roy Gomm Elementary School's uniform policy.

"We hold that the Roy Gomm Elementary School policy compels speech because it mandates the written motto, 'Tomorrow's Leaders,' on the uniform shirt," wrote Judge Jacquelin Nguyen who wrote the opinion from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Further, the exemption for uniforms for nationally recognized youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts on regular meeting days is content based. For these reasons, we conclude that strict scrutiny review applies," Nguyen wrote.

This is what happens when a school district gives principals too much leeway on decision-making. The principals are simply too ignorant of the law to proceed without consulting attorneys first. I knew the district was going to get hauled off into court the minute Sparks MS decided to go the uniform route.

Uniforms have no business in public schools, period, even though another court said it was legal.

Volokh writes about the decision here.

Frudden v. Pilling

It looks like school uniform plaintiff Mary Frudden is also fighting the mandatory school uniform policy at WCSD's Roy Gomm ES to the state supreme court. It appears this is a separate legal "track" arguing a different case than the one that was argued recently in front of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. She argues principals and other groups that are NOT school boards do NOT have authority under Nevada law to impose uniforms. The Ninth Circuit case talked only about mottos:

Frudden v. Pilling

The argument in front of the Ninth Circuit is up on YouTube thanks to Eugene Volokh, who is representing the Fruddens in the Romm Gomm mandatory uniform case, by noting on his blog it was up.

The issue is the mandatory motto apparently:



link


The panel is very confused, too, like I am, because indeed the whole idea of the mandatory uniforms as conformity seemed to be the issue in the lower court. I had read that original complaint.

The court could very well throw this out.

More here.

On the other hand, the judges are just as tough with the school district lawyer, Randy Drake, as they are with Volokh.

Who knows? I really think uniforms should be made illegal for public schools although another court of appeals, as mentioned in the video, said they were legal. I vehemently disagree.

I wouldn't bet either way on this case.