C. S., by Her Next Friend, Adam Stroub v. Craig McCrumb, et al.

On Hat Day at her public elementary school, thirdgrader C.S. chose a baseball cap depicting an AR-15 and the historical phrase “come and take it,” to show her support for the constitutionally protected right to bear arms. Because school officials believe wearing weapon imagery is never appropriate in school, they made her remove it. Months later, after C.S. sued, the same officials contrived the excuse that a high-school shooting two counties away made them concerned for emotional reactions the hat could prompt—a post hoc rationalization lower courts credited even though it was not referenced the day of the incident and even though there was no evidence any of C.S.’s schoolmates even knew of the tragedy. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Comm. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 514 (1969), requires school officials seeking to restrict student speech to show “substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities.” The justification “must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation.” Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 597 U.S. 507, 543 n.8 (2022). This Court has never recognized a “hurt feelings” exception to this principle. The question presented is: Is post hoc speculation about emotional harm that speech could cause to other students insufficient to meet Tinker’s “substantial disruption” standard?