FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAY G3 2010
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION
~
ALOYSIUS DREAMING BEAR, ) )
Plaintiff, ) ) No. 10- 7j]) 30
v. ) )
BERLINE FLEMING, BONNIE ANDERSON, ) JOHN COPE, LANCE TLUSTOS, LISA ) LOCKHART, AND LAWRENCE JASKE, )
) Defendants. )
---------------- )
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
"As a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to
restrict expression because ofits message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." United
States v. Stevens, _ U.S. _, 2010 U.S. Lexis 3478 * 14 (April 20, 2010), quoting
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573 (2002).
From its first contacts with Native Americans, the dominant white society sought to
subdue and subjugate them. Sometimes the method was war; sometimes it was treaties that
would be dishonored; and sometimes it was simply to force them to give up their traditions
and assimilate into white culture.
Case 5:10-cv-05030-JLV Document 6 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 12
Attempts to require native people to assimilate took many forms. One approach was
to require native children to conform to white standards oflanguage, grooming, and clothing.
Many native children in South Dakota who attended schools operated by non-Indians were
prevented from speaking Lakota, were forced to cut their hair, and were required to abandon
their traditional clothing. A well-known-and profoundly sad-photograph taken in 1927
at Holy Rosary Mission School in Pine Ridge shows scores ofLakota youth who were forced
to dress as if they were white.
The non-Indians who imposed such requirements always thought they were doing
good. They thought they were bringing the benefits ofa better civilization, and a better life,
to Lakota children. But the passage of time revealed the profound tragedy of attempting to
separate a traditional people from its culture.
Aloysius Dreaming Bear is a traditional Lakota man, nineteen years old, who is proud
of his heritage. He has earned the right to graduate from Oelrichs High School, and to
receive a diplonla on May 22 at graduation. He wants to wear traditional Lakota dress when
he receives his diploma. He has politely, respectfully, and appropriately asked defendants
to allow him to do so. Defendants refuse. They require him to hide his traditional dress
underneath the clothing the dominant white culture requires on such an occasion: a cap and
gown.
2
Case 5:10-cv-05030-JLV Document 6 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 12
Arl:ument
1. The Merits Overwhelming Favor Dreaming Bear
The First Amendment prohibits the government from "abridging the freedom of
speech." The word "speech" as used in the First Amendment includes conduct which
expresses an idea: "The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only ofspeech, but
we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word....
In deciding whetherparticular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring
the First Amendment into play, we have asked whether an intent to convey a particularized
message was present, and whether the likelihood was great that the message would be
understood by those who viewed it." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397,404 (1989) (internal
quotations and brackets omitted).
In this case, Dreaming Bear intends by wearing traditional clothing at graduation to
convey a particularized message that he is proud ofhis Lakota heritage, culture, and people.
It is certain that this message will be understood by all-except perhaps the most
insensitive-who view it.
How a person chooses to dress is a form of expression. "A person's choice of
clothing is infused with intentional expression on many levels. In sonle instances, clothing
functions as pure speech.... Clothing may also symbolize ethnic heritage, religious beliefs,
and political and social views." Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board, 240 F .3d 437,440
(5th Cir. 2001). In this case, how Aloysius Dreaming Bear chooses to dress at graduation is
3
Case 5:10-cv-05030-JLV Document 6 Filed 05/03/10 Page 3 of 12
exquisitely expressive, because it is a public ceremony (high school graduation) which marks
the transition from adolescence to adulthood, and he is a Native American living in a Native
American community (Oglala) who attends school in a predominantly non-Indian community
(Oelrichs).
The First Amendment applies to public schools. Thus public school students cannot
be required to salute the American flag. West Virginia State Board a/Education v. Barnette,
319 U.S. 624 (1943). Likewise, high school students are constitutionally entitled to wear
black armbands to school to protest government policy. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent
Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). Wearing a black armband was "closely
akin to pure speech which, we have repeatedly held, is entitled to comprehensive protection
under the First Amendment." Id. at 505-06 (internal quotation omitted).
The other side ofthe coin-legitimate exercise ofschool authority-is demonstrated
by Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), which upheld a high school's right to discipline
a student for unfurling a banner reading "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" at a school-sanctioned,
school-sponsored event, because a high school may lawfully restrict student speech which
reasonably may be viewed as promoting illegal drug use, in light of the substantial school
interest in deterring it.
This case is as far from "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" as any case possibly could be. This
case is not even about wearing a black armband to protest a government policy. Dreaming
Bear's traditional clothing is a statement ofhis pride in his people, his culture, and himself.
4
Case 5:10-cv-05030-JLV Document 6 Filed 05/03/10 Page 4 of 12
The state has no legitimate interest in forbidding Dreaming Bear from wearing traditional
clothing when he graduates. Ironically, Lakota traditions and values, which Dreaming Bear
will promote ifallowed to wear traditional clothing at graduation, deter the abuse ofalcohol
and illegal drugs that has sometimes flourished when those traditions and values have been
suppressed or abandoned.
Courts have been down these roads before. Lowry v. Watson Chapel School District,
540 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2008) involved a school district that imposed a mandatory school
uniform policy focused particularly on grades seven through twelve. Several junior and
senior high school students wore black armbands to protest the policy or the way it was
enforced. The school disciplined them. The district court ruled that the discipline violated
plaintiffs' rights, and permanently enjoined defendants from disciplining any student who
wore a similar band. The circuit, relying on Tinker, affirmed.
By contrast, B. W.A. v. Farmington R-7 School District, 554 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 2009)
held that high school officials were within their rights to ban the wearing ofConfederate flag
symbols, because officials had good reason to believe that allowing such displays "would
cause a substantial and material disruption" in light ofthe history of racial disruption at the
school. This history included a white student urinating on a black student, a group ofwhite
students armed with an aluminum baseball bat showing up at a black student's home and
making racially derogatory comments, and a racial confrontation at a high school basketball
game. Schools "may act proactively to prohibit race-related violence or even excessive racial
5
Case 5:10-cv-05030-JLV Document 6 Filed 05/03/10 Page 5 of 12
tension that forces unnecessary departures ofminority students from the school." Id. at 741.
Dreaming Bear's wearing traditional Lakota clothing at his graduation will not, and
cannot, cause any problem. If anything, allowing him to wear such clothing will stinlulate
discussion of why he is wearing it, what it means, and why it is important to him. In the
absence ofa substantial and significant state interest, defendants may not restrict Dreaming
Bear's First Amendment right to express himself and his views by wearing traditional
clothing at graduation.
Cases from outside this circuit illustrate the same principles. Chalifoux v. New Caney
Independent School District, 976 F. Supp. 659 (S.D. Tex. 1997) held that high school
students have a First Amendment right to wear rosaries outside their clothing on school
premises. The First Amendment protects "not only verbal and written expression, but also
symbols and conduct that constitute symbolic speech." Id. at 665 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
These principles have been applied to Native American students. In Alabama and
Coushatta Tribes ofTexas v. Trustees ofthe Big Sandy Independent School District, 817 F.
Supp. 1319 (E. D. Tex. 1993), Native American students wanted to wear their hair long, in
their traditional manner. A school regulation required a boy's hair to be no longer than the
top of a standard dress collar. The court enjoined enforcement of the regulation against
Native Americans. The court recognized "the recent movement among younger Native
Americans to recognize and revitalize their Native American heritage, after more than a
6
Case 5:10-cv-05030-JLV Document 6 Filed 05/03/10 Page 6 of 12
century of assimilation into white culture." Id. at 1326.
The court ruled that the school hair code violated the plaintiffs' right to freedom of
speech guaranteed by the First Amendment: "the wearing of long hair by Native American
students is a protected expressive activity, which does not unduly disrupt the educational
process or interfere with the rights of other students. As such, the regulation, as applied to
these students, violates the First Amendment free speech clause." Id. at 1334. Mere
"[a]nticipation of disruption due to the wearing of long hair does not justify the curtailment
of the students' silent, passive expression of their faith and heritage." Id.
Like the students inAlabama andCoushatta Tribes ofTexas , Aloysius Dreaming Bear
seeks to express his faith and heritage by wearing traditional clothing at graduation. No
improper disruption of anything will occur.
A similar case is A.A. v. Needville Independent School District, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis
125690 (S. D. Tex.) The school prohibited Native American students fronl wearing their hair
long. They sued, alleging that the regulation unconstitutionally restricted their First
Anlendment rights. The district court reviewed the history of "the federal government's
efforts to assimilate Native Americans in the 19th and 20th century," including sending
children to boarding schools where teachers prohibited them from speaking their indigenous
language and practicing their religious beliefs, and where students were required to cut their
hair.
The court found that a Native American student's braids "convey a particularized
7
Case 5:10-cv-05030-JLV Document 6 Filed 05/03/10 Page 7 of 12
message ofhis Native American heritage and religion." Id. at *52. A plaintifftestified that
wearing long hair, in part, is "a symbol, an outward extension ofwho we are and where we
come from, our ancestry and where we're going in life. It's a constant reminder to us ofwho
we are." Id. The court found that the restriction violated the First Amendment, and granted
the requested injunction. The defendants failed to demonstrate that the limitation on hair
length furthered important interests of the school. Id. at 56.
Aloysius Dreaming Bear's traditional clothing has similar symbolic meaning for hinl
as the student's braids did in A.A. v. Needville Independent School District. He wrote to the
school board and Dr. Jaske: "I am protecting my people by coming here to face you, and
protect my cultures heritage by standing up for what is right and that is me wear my tribes
traditional clothing with pride on graduation day, because how can I be a honorable Lakota
warrior by wearing a white mans gown, and not my tribes regalia?" Attachment to Affidavit
ofAloysius Dreaming Bear, filed herewith. He wrote: "[M]y ancestors have fought many
battles and wars with the wasicu people just so that I can stand here in confidence and respect
for my people and honor what my people gave their lives for and that is our heritage, our
culture, our beliefs, our language, and most ofall our pride, and I can only see me honoring
them by wearing what I wish to wear in making it through a white man's education, by
graduating high school." Id.
8
Case 5:10-cv-05030-JLV Document 6 Filed 05/03/10 Page 8 of 12
2. Dreaming Bear is Entitled to Injunctive Relief
"Aplaintiffseeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed
on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence ofpreliminary relief:
that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest."
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 129 S. Ct. 365, 375 (2008).
A. Plaintiff is Likely to Succeed on the Merits
Plaintiff has demonstrated above that he is likely to succeed on the merits.
B. Plaintiff Will Suffer Irreparable Harm in the Absence of Prelinlinary Relief
High school graduation comes at most once in a lifetime. Plaintiffwill graduate from
high school on May 22, nineteen days fronl today, which is even before defendants' Answer
is due. He will never again have the opportunity to wear traditional clothing at his high
school graduation. The opportunity to wear traditional clothing at graduation is meaningful
and important to him, as he explains in his Affidavit and the attached letter to the Oelrichs
School Board filed herewith. "The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal
periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." Lowry v. Watson Chapel
School District, 540 F.3d 752, 762 (8th Cir. 2008), quoting Elrodv. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373
(1976).
c. The Balance of Equities Favors Plaintiff
The Court must balance Aloysius Dreaming Bear's First Amendment right to wear
traditional dress at his high school graduation against defendant's interest in - what?
9
Case 5:10-cv-05030-JLV Document 6 Filed 05/03/10 Page 9 of 12
In all the First Amendment cases discussed above, defendants cited some allegedly
legitimate interest that they contended justified their restriction of plaintiffs freedom of
expression. In some cases the allegedly legitimate interest is the possibility ofviolence. In
other cases it is the need to maintain order or avoid alleged disruption of the school.
In this case, there is no legitimate school board interest in prohibiting plaintiff from
wearing traditional clothing at graduation. The school superintendent, Dr. Lawrence Jaske,
defended the school's decision by stating "no one holds a gun to these kids' heads and says
they have to come here." Letter ofApril]2, 20]0, by Aloysius Dreaming Bear, p. ], attached
to Affidavit ofAloysius Dreaming Bear filed herewith. Dr. Jaske stated that if wearing
traditional clothing at graduation was important to him, Dreaming Bear "should have gone
to Pine Ridge or Red Cloud. That is his choice." Id. atp. 2. In other words, the school says
that Dreaming Bear may not wear his traditional clothing at graduation because he
voluntarily chose to go off the reservation to attend high school.
Dr. Jaske's statements are disturbing. Dreaming Bear's letter shows that he found the
statements disturbing. But even apart from that issue, Dr. Jaske's statements express the
view that Dreaming Bear may be denied the right to wear traditional clothing at graduation
because he chose to attend Oelrichs High School. This is plainly contrary to law. "[T]he
government may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally
protected freedom of speech even if he has no entitlement to that benefits." Rumsfeld v.
Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 547 U.S. 47, 59 (2006) (ellipsis omitted),
10
Case 5:10-cv-05030-JLV Document 6 Filed 05/03/10 Page 10 of 12
quoting United States v. Am. Library Ass 'n, 539 U.S. 194, 210 (2003) and Board of
Comm'rs, Wabaunsee Cty. v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 674 (1996).
D. An Injunction is in the Public Interest
Two federal district judges have explained, far more cogently and eloquently than
plaintiffs attorney can, why an injunction in a case such as this one is in the public interest.
The first is Alabama and Coushatta Tribes ofTexas v. Trustees ofthe Big Sandy Independent
School District, 817 F. Supp. 1319 (E. D. Tex. 1993), the case described above challenging
the school's requirement that Native An1erican students wear their hair short. In finding an
injunction to be in the public interest, the court stated: "the granting ofpreliminary
injunctive reliefis in the public interest, as itpromotes tolerance for diverse viewpoints, and
fosters understanding andsensitivity towards Native American students, and, indeed, toward
all students who have beliefs which fall outside ofour society's mainstream, ethnocentric
beliefsystem." Id. at 1337 (emphasis added).
The second case is A.A. v. Needville Independent School District, 2009 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 125690 (S. D. Tex.), the other case described above challenging the school's
requirement that Native American students wear their hair short. In finding an injunction to
be in the public interest, the court stated: "The public has a strong interest in the enforcement
of constitutional rights, particularly in the context of public schools. 'That they are
educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of constitutional
freedoms ofthe individual, ifwe are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach
11
Case 5:10-cv-05030-JLV Document 6 Filed 05/03/10 Page 11 of 12
youth to discount important principles ofour government as mere platitudes. '" Id. at * 62
(emphasis added), quoting West Virginia State BoardofEducation v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624,
637 (1943).
Conclusion
Plaintiffrequests a prelinlinary and permanent injunction restraining defendants from
prohibiting him and other students from wearing traditional clothing at graduation on May
22, 2010, and for a permanent injunction restraining defendants from prohibiting other
Lakota students from wearing traditional clothing at future graduations.
Dated: May 3, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
~ACP'~ Attorney at Law 1617 Sheridan Lake Rd. Rapid City, SD 57702 Tel: (605) 341-4400 Fax: (605) 341-0716 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff
12
Case 5:10-cv-05030-JLV Document 6 Filed 05/03/10 Page 12 of 12