Monte D. Tucker v. State of California Department of Education James L. Phillips Maria R. Balakshin Terry Proschold

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• treating cubicles and office doors of a state education building as nonpublic fora
• “A teacher appears to speak for the state when he or she teaches; therefore, the department may permissibly restrict such religious advocacy.”
• “Because the orders here regulate only a certain type of expression, based on its content — religious expression — they are not content neutral.”
• “A KENNEDY V. BREMERTON SCH. DIST. 31 teacher appears to speak for the state when he or she teaches; therefore, the department may permissibly restrict such religious advocacy.”
• “[R]eligious expression . . . is obviously of public concern.”
• “We conclude that it is not reasonable to 22 The Court has sometimes referred to this entire third category of fora as a “limited public forum.” Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744, 1763 (2017); Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98, 106 (2001

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).