— In Michigan, the United States Court of Appeals, affirmed that school officials did not violate a student’s free speech rights when they asked the student to remove a hat depicting an automatic weapon. The lawsuit arose when the student “arrived at school wearing a black baseball cap that displayed a white star, a white image of an AR-15-style rifle, and the capitalized phrase, “COME AND TAKE IT.” School officials determined that the hat “was inappropriate for an elementary school setting… decided to call (the student’s) parents and ask them to bring her a substitute hat to wear. (The parents) declined to do so. From there, (school officials) went to (the student’s) classroom, called her into the hallway, and asked her to remove the Hat and put it inside her locker. (The student) complied without issue.” The rule of law applied by the lower court was that “at a minimum, to invoke First Amendment protections, a student must show that her conduct is imbued with elements of communication which convey a particularized message that will be understood by those who view it. Simply wanting to wear clothes that students believe “look nice” and reflect their middle-school individuality, for instance, does not trigger First Amendment protections. If a student can establish that her conduct was expressive and intended to convey some sort of message, a school may nonetheless regulate speech that is vulgar, plainly offensive, or inconsistent with its basic educational mission.” On appeal, the appellate court agreed that under the First Amendment, schools may place reasonable regulations on student speech during the school day that are reasonable related to their duty to preserve the learning environment, avoid disruptions. The appellate court reasoned that “in consideration of (the elementary school’s) special characteristics and circumstances, such as its absorption of students from the Oxford School District and the especially young age of (the student) and her classmates, combined with the Hat’s provocative message, school officials made a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption to the school’s educational environment.” C.S. v. McCrumb
— In Texas, the legislature has approved HB33 – The Uvalde Strong Act – “to fix police failures laid bare by the hesitant law enforcement response to the Robb Elementary School shooting in 2022.” Under its provisions, schools and law enforcement must “to meet annually to develop active shooter response plans, and mandates officers be trained on how to respond to an active shooter at primary and secondary schools.”
— In Iowa, Senate File 583 – a new school safety policy – has been enacted. In its provisions, schools, law enforcement, mental health professionals and social service agents are authorized to share information while performing threat assessments of concerning behaviors by students.
— In Washington State, Senate Bill 5004 was signed into law, mandating that school districts “improve school safety by implementing advanced systems such as silent panic alarms and real-time communication tools.” Schools now are collaborating with local law enforcement to develop and implement these systems.