Standridge v. Blount County Board of Education

On February 24, 2025, Jane Standridge filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee against the Blount County Board of Education. The complaint alleged that school officials violated her son’s First Amendment rights by prohibiting him from distributing religious literature during lunch and free periods, and by removing him from a student government position due to a religious-themed post on his personal social media account. The plaintiff argued the school’s policies on student expression were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The case examined the boundaries of off-campus student speech regulation post-Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., and whether the school’s actions constituted viewpoint discrimination against religious expression.

The district court issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the student in April 2025, holding that the school likely overstepped its authority by punishing off-campus religious speech that did not cause a substantial disruption. The parties subsequently entered settlement talks, and in late 2025 the board agreed to revise its student expression policy and reinstate the student’s leadership position.

Whether the school board’s restrictions on distributing religious materials and disciplining a student for off-campus social media content violated the First Amendment’s free speech and free exercise clauses, and whether school policies were unconstitutionally vague.

The case drew significant attention from religious liberty organizations such as Alliance Defending Freedom and free speech groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. It underscored the heightened protection for off-campus student speech and religious expression, prompting numerous school districts across the country to reexamine their social media and literature distribution policies. The outcome reinforced the principle that vague or overbroad school speech codes are vulnerable to constitutional challenge.