Jessica Reynolds and two minor plaintiffs, D.E. and L.R., filed suit after their children were removed from classroom instruction and marked as unexcused for refusing to wear face masks in early 2022 at Foothill Ranch Elementary School in the Saddleback Valley Unified School District (District). During that time, the District was enforcing mask mandates consistent with state and local public health guidelines, and the plaintiffs claimed that they were falsely imprisoned, bullied, coerced, pressured, and humiliated for choosing not to give informed consent to wear a mask at school per the masking policy.
In particular, the plaintiffs claimed that school officials, including the school principal, responded to the students’ noncompliance by removing them from classrooms, seating them outside or in enclosed courtyards, and denying access to recess and teacher-led instruction unless they wore masks. Plaintiffs also alleged that the District reported the absences to the Orange County District Attorney, which resulted in truancy letters being issued to the students’ parents.
The plaintiffs filed a pro se lawsuit raising several claims, most notably under the First Amendment, alleging that their children’s refusal to wear masks was a form of political protest that should be protected as free speech. They also raised due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, and claims under California civil rights, tort, and constitutional law.
The Court evaluated the First Amendment claim under the test for expressive conduct established in Spence v. Washington, which requires: (1) an intent to convey a particularized message, and (2) a great likelihood that the message would be understood by those who viewed it. If a law restricts conduct that is not expressive then the conduct is not protected by the First Amendment, and the law is reviewed under rational basis scrutiny. Rational basis review is the least rigorous form of scrutiny used by courts; it only requires that the law or action be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
Here, the plaintiffs argued that their refusal to comply with the mask mandate conveyed a message opposing government overreach and skepticism about the effectiveness of masks. However, the Court found that the plaintiffs’ conduct failed both prongs of the Spence test. First, the reasons cited by the plaintiffs and their children for refusing to wear masks were inconsistent and personal in nature. For example, one child, L.R., reportedly found the mask uncomfortable and expressed confusion about why masking was necessary if he was not sick. Another child, D.E., said the mask made her feel tired and distracted. These explanations lacked a clear intent to communicate a particular political or social message.
Second, the Court concluded that even if the students intended to protest, their refusal to wear masks was not likely to be understood as a form of protest by observers. Teachers and classmates did not interpret the conduct as expressive speech but rather as rule-breaking behavior that endangered the health and safety of others. Teachers labeled unmasked students as potential health risks, and other children were reportedly frustrated with the noncompliant students.
In comparing the case to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld students’ right to wear black armbands in silent protest of the Vietnam War, the Court emphasized that Tinker involved deliberate, passive expression that did not disrupt school order. In contrast, here, the Court found that refusing to comply with a health mandate during a global pandemic posed a tangible risk to the safety and well-being of others and disrupted the School’s orderly operation. The Court also cited Morse v. Frederick, where the U.S. Supreme Court allowed school officials to restrict student expression that promoted illegal drug use, holding that the state has a compelling interest in preventing speech that undermines core safety policies.
Applying the rational basis standard, the Court held that the District mask mandate served a legitimate government interest—protecting students and staff from COVID-19 transmission—and that requiring masks was a reasonable and constitutionally permissible condition for attending in-person instruction. The plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims were dismissed.
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from depriving any person of “life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” Under this amendment, there are two types of due process: procedural due process and substantive due process. The plaintiffs did not specify whether they raised a procedural or substantive due process claim, so the Court addressed both.
Procedural due process requires notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an impartial trial. Here, the Court found no violation because the mask mandate was a general policy, not an individual decision, and it was applied uniformly. Further, plaintiffs failed to identify a protected liberty or property interest. Courts have consistently held that temporary in-school suspensions or placement changes do not trigger due process protections if students are not excluded from school. The Court emphasized that the District made efforts to continue students’ education and maintain safety, including through supervised outdoor learning spaces.
For substantive due process, the first inquiry is whether a fundamental right is at stake. Here, the Court emphasized that there was no fundamental constitutional right to attend school without a mask during a pandemic. Parental rights to control children’s education do not extend to overriding school safety measures. The Court cited longstanding precedent to affirm the government’s authority to enact reasonable public health regulations during an emergency. Because the plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead any violation of fundamental rights, the claim was reviewed under rational basis scrutiny and again failed.
Having dismissed the federal claims, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.
Reynolds v. Saddleback Valley Unified School District (C.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2025) 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83605.
Note: This case reaffirms that not all student conduct—such as refusing to wear a mask—is protected speech under the First Amendment, particularly when it disrupts school operations or public health measures. While this case involved a public school, it serves as a reminder that high school students, including those in private schools, have free speech rights under California law.