Matthews v. Kountze Indep. Sch, Dist.
No. 14-0453
Case Summary written by Frances Tubb, Staff Member.
JUSTICE DEVINE delivered the opinion of the Court.
Kountze Independent School District had a policy that prevented school cheerleaders from displaying religious messages on banners at school-sponsored events. The cheerleaders claimed this prohibition on religious messages violated their rights of freedom of speech and exercise of religion protected under the Texas Constitution. Parents sued on behalf of the school cheerleaders, seeking permanent relief to enjoin the school district from enforcing this policy. After the cheerleaders filed their suit, the school district changed its policy allowing for display of “fleeting expressions” with a religious origin, but the school district retained the ability to limit the content of banners. After changing the school policy, the school district argued the cheerleaders’ claim was moot.
Issue: Did the School District’s voluntary termination of the conduct at issue render the plaintiffs’ claims for future relief moot?
The district court denied the School District’s motion, and the court of appeals accepted an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals held the cheerleaders’ action was moot due to the policy change. The Supreme Court of Texas accepted review to resolve a dispute between the appellate courts as to whether the School District needed to renounce its original policy in order for the claim to be moot. Mootness requires there to be a live case or controversy ready for adjudication. The termination of a policy in and of itself does not make a controversy moot because the School District has the ability to reinstate the policy at any time. A dismissal is only appropriate if the conduct is not capable of repetition, and that burden is difficult to meet. Although the School District’s new policy does not prevent the cheerleaders from displaying religious messages, there is nothing to prevent the School District from returning to its original policy in the future. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Texas held the case was not moot, reversed the court of appeals, and remanded the case to the court of appeals for further proceedings.
JUSTICE WILLETT filed a concurring opinion.
Justice Willett concurred fully with the majority opinion; however, he wrote separately to express his concern that the case would return to the Supreme Court of Texas at a later time with unresolved questions concerning religious freedom. He noted the trial court order did not resolve the question of whether the cheerleaders’ speech was private or public. He also believed the trial court failed to clearly indicate which claims were waived and which claims were preserved. When the issue reappears at the trial court, Justice Willett urged the court not to shy away from the difficult question that guards religious freedom.
JUSTICE GUZMAN filed a concurring opinion.
Justice Guzman concurred that this controversy was not moot, but she wrote separately to express that religious freedom deserves respect in the balance of constitutional rights. Justice Guzman noted that religious freedom is protected in both the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution. She recounted several cases where school districts infringed on First Amendment rights, attempting to prevent the expression of religious messages by students. She was concerned about the lack of clear guidance on when limitation of religious expression is acceptable.