Ban the Boy’s Braid? A Court on Grooming

Legal Brief

The mother of prospective kindergartener, A.A., reached out to the principal of an elementary school in Texas to explain that her son, like his father, wore his hair long. A.A.’s hair never had been cut and was in two 13-inch braids. A.A.’s mother asked whether A.A.’s hair, worn in accordance with the family’s Native American heritage, would pose a problem in light of the district’s dress code. The principal responded that the dress code did not allow boys’ hair to touch their ears or go below their collar, stating: “Long hair is not allowed.”

The family provided DNA evidence of their Native American heritage and completed a newly created exemption form. The principal denied the family’s request for an exemption. After A.A.’s parents appealed to the school board, district officials proposed an alternative: A.A. would be allowed to wear his hair in a single braid tucked into his shirt or in a bun on top of his head. The family found the alternatives unacceptable.

Limited Restrictions

When A.A. wore his long hair to school, he was remanded to in-school suspension until the family filed a federal lawsuit against the district. The suit alleged, among other things, that the district’s policy violated A.A.’s right to free exercise of religion under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and similar rights under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The court ruled that a school district may set grooming standards for its students, but “when those standards substantially burden the free exercise of religion, they must accomplish something.” In Texas and 20 other states with similar state-level religious freedom acts, a school district by law may only restrict the free exercise of religion if:

1. the school district can establish a compelling interest that justifies the burden placed on the individual; and
2. the school district has adopted the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

In this case, the court concluded that requiring A.A. to comply with the grooming standards would have been a substantial burden on his right to free exercise of his religious beliefs during “a critical period of time in a young child’s development.” In the court’s view, it was unacceptable to force A.A. to choose between attending the public school and following his religious beliefs.

In its defense, the district argued that it had the necessary compelling interest that justified the grooming standards. The court analyzed each of the district’s five stated goals: to teach hygiene; instill discipline; prevent disruption; avoid safety hazards; and assert authority. In each case, the court found no way in which the district’s interests in general would be adversely affected by granting A.A., specifically, the requested exemption.

For example, the district had no restrictions on the length of girls’ hair, suggesting that safety was not a valid concern. Furthermore, no disruption had been caused by A.A.’s long hair. Granting A.A. an exemption did not jeopardize the district’s interest in authority or discipline. Boys’ long hair might be viewed generally as an act of rebellion, but A.A.’s long hair was not.

Proactive Codes

A.A.’s case emphasizes the importance of school districts proactively writing dress codes and grooming standards in a way that accommodates students’ religious beliefs in order to avoid resource-intensive litigation. In a related way, the case emphasizes the need to communicate expectations about accommodating religious practice that are clear to staff, students and parents.

Districts should review their policies to ensure that students are not prevented from wearing religious garb or symbols or grooming themselves in such a manner where that choice results from the student’s genuinely held religious beliefs. Such policies may state affirmatively that students are permitted to groom themselves consistent with and wear clothing and jewelry associated with their religion. So long as students’ choices do not disrupt school operations, interfere with the rights of others or pose a material threat to students’ health and safety, districts should be wary of creating restrictions to religious exercise.

Michelle Tellock is a senior associate in the education law group at Hogan Lovells in Washington, D.C.
@HoganLovellsEdu