— In Texas, the United States District Court ruled that school officials were not immune from an assault claim bought by parents of a student who went to school in a haircut with a scalp design, which educators filled in with a Sharpie permanent marker. The court ruled that although the scalp coloring constituted corporal punishment, the rule of law is that liability depends on whether the school official intended to discipline the student for the purpose of maintaining order or respect or to cause harm to the student for no legitimate pedagogical purpose. (Trice v. Pearland Independent School District) .
— In Indiana, the United States District Court ruled that a school policy, requiring teachers to address students by their preferred name and pronoun, was neutral and generally applicable, and thus a teacher had no right to an exemption based on his religious beliefs. The court ruled that when a citizen enters government service he must accept limitations on his rights. When carrying out official duties, a teacher is not speaking as a citizen for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate his communications with students from employer discipline. (Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation)
— In Pennsylvania, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the conviction of a parent for Terroristic Threats. The statement of the parent that, “I’ll come up there and kill all of you mother fuckers,” satisfied the requirements of the penal code that (1) a person make a threat to commit a crime of violence, and (2) the threat is communicated with the intent to terrorize another or with reckless disregard for the risk of causing terror. (Commonwealth v. Crosby).
— In Missouri, the United States District Court upheld the suspension of a student for the off-campus Internet posting of a fellow student in a coffin with information on the funeral. The court ruled that it was reasonably foreseeable that student’s speech would cause a substantial disruption to the educational setting. This test focuses on the reasonableness of the response of the school, not on the intent of the student. The court ruled that administrators that fail to enforce school rules against bullying or punishments for bullying could be liable. (A.S. by and through Schaefer v. Lincoln County R-III School District).