# Morgan v. Swanson

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · September 27, 2011 · 659 F.3d 359

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8412123

## Case

- **Full name:** Doug MORGAN v. Lynn SWANSON
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 27, 2011
- **Citations:** 659 F.3d 359; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19656; 2011 WL 4470233
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Owen
- **Judges:** Benavides, Clement, Davis, Demoss, Dennis, Elrod, Garza, Haynes, Jolly, Jones, King, Owen, Prado, Smith, Southwick, Stewart, Together
- **Cited by:** 623 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8412123

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that an analysis of whether student speech infringes on the right to be let alone may “look different in the elementary- school context” given that elementary students are “more susceptible to coercion and peer pressure” than older students
- holding, for the majority, that discriminating against student speech on the basis of religious viewpoint violated the First Amendment and concluding, in dissent, that the right was clearly established
- holding that student passing out pencils with the word “Jesus” on them during non-curricular time was protected by the First Amendment
- holding “[t]he defendants in this case are entitled to qualified immunity because existing precedent failed to place the constitutionality of their conduct ‘beyond debate’ ”

## Opinion text

OWEN, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I join the specially concurring opinion of Chief Judge Jones, except to the extent that it adopts all of Part III of Judge Elrod’s dissenting opinion. I cannot agree that the law is well-settled regarding the First Amendment rights of elementary school children, for the reasons set forth in Judge Benavides’ opinion. Nor do I agree with the conclusion in Part III(B) of Judge Elrod’s opinion that the principals have waived the arguments discussed in that section. However, I agree with much of Part 111(A) of Judge Elrod’s opinion, though I do not join that section of her opinion. I do join Parts III(C) and III(D) of Judge Elrod’s opinion. I read Part III(D) as addressing' the following question: “Taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right?” 1
I also join in Parts II, III, and IV of Judge Benavides’ opinion.
. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8412123. Public record. Not legal advice.