A federal judge on Friday ruled that the majority of the claims  in a lawsuit against The Vanguard School and Harrison School District 2, alleging the school and district violated the First Amendment rights of a student, could proceed.

Jaiden “J.R.” Rodriguez, a former junior high student at The Vanguard School, and his mom, Eden Hope Rodriguez, in 2023 sued the school and school district over its policy over whether he can wear a Gadsden flag patch on his backpack.

The lawsuit alleges that the school and school district’s dress code policy prohibiting Rodriguez from wearing the Gadsden flag patch and several other patches depicting firearms is a violation of his First Amendment rights.

Earlier this year the defendants (Vanguard and D-2) filed a motion for dismissal, stating that several of the claims in the lawsuit should not move forward. Some of the arguments for dismissal in their motion included claims regarding jurisdiction, and that some claims were now moot due to a revision in the district’s dress code policy.

On Friday, Judge S. Kato Crews issued a ruling denying a majority of the dismissal motion’s parts.

“This decision is a stinging rebuke to school officials who think they can silence points of view that are out of step with ‘progressive’ orthodoxy,” James Kerwin, an attorney representing the Rodriguez family said in a statement to The Gazette. “The Gadsden Flag is a proud symbol of freedom, despite fashionable ideologies that try to link it (and every other symbol of the American founding) with the evils of history.  Patriotic students everywhere can take heart in today’s decision. Their right to honor their country and its past remains intact and protected by the First Amendment.”

According to the ruling from Crews, the motion for dismissal did not adequately prove that either the school or the school district was not responsible for the dress code policy alleged to be a First Amendment violation. Crews found that the school and the school district appear to be “finger-pointing” over which entity was responsible for the dress code, but that the finger-pointing is irrelevant due to both parties being responsible for enforcing the dress code policy in question.

Additionally, Crews found issue with a portion of the motion stating claims in the lawsuit were now moot due to Harrison School District’s updated dress code policy.

The analysis from Crews states that “at first blush” the revised dress code policy from the school district provided by Superintendent Wendy Birhanzel makes the Rodriguez family’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief moot. However, Crews said on further inspection from the court the district’s current dress code online retains the disputed policy.

“The Court is not convinced here because the District appears to have returned to the allegedly wrongful behavior by either never publishing the updated policy or revising it again after December 2023 to reinstate the objectionable language,” the court order states.

Crews added he was “troubled” either way if Birhanzel submitted a statement misrepresenting the status of the district’s policy or if the new policy was not yet posted online more than a year later.

Gwyneth Whalen, an attorney representing Birhanzel, told The Gazette she had yet to read the court’s order and could not provide a statement.

Although the majority of claims will move forward, some were dismissed by the judge; including claims from the Rodriguez family alleging retaliation for engaging in protected free speech. Crews in the court order states that no evidence was provided to support the claim of retaliation against Rodriguez, so that claim was dismissed without prejudice.

Additional claims were dismissed for being redundant, according to the court order.

Crews wrote that Rodriguez’s claims of a First Amendment violation were viable under the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. The Vietnam War-era case, involving student protest, recognized that expression is protected if it does not “materially and substantially disrupt” school operations.

With the dismissal motion now ruled on, Crews ordered all parties to contact the court in the next seven days to continue the lawsuit proceedings.