A.A. ex rel Betenbaugh v. Needville Independent School District
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
611 F.3d 248 (2010)
- Written by Caitlinn Raimo, JD
Facts
A.A. (plaintiff) was a kindergarten student in Needville, Texas. The Needville school district (the district) (defendant) had a grooming policy, which provided, in part, that boys’ hair must not cover any part of their ears or reach the top of their shirt collars. A.A., who was Native American, had never cut his hair and wore it either unbraided or in one or two braids. His family, as part of their religion, believed long hair represented a connection to their ancestors and symbolized their Native American cultural identity. A.A.’s parents requested that he be exempt from the grooming policy on religious grounds. The district did not grant A.A. a full exemption; instead, it permitted him to wear his hair either in a single braid tucked into his shirt or in a bun. A.A. did not comply, and he was suspended. A.A.’s parents sued, contending that the district violated the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA). The district proffered five justifications for the policy: hygiene, instilling discipline, preventing disruption, avoiding safety hazards, and asserting authority. The district court agreed with A.A.’s parents and issued an injunction against the district. The district appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Higginbotham, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 787,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.