Supreme Court Upholds Lower Courts on AR-15 Hat and Jury Bias Appeals
Supreme Court declined to review appeals on AR-15 school hat ban and racial jury discrimination.
Why it matters: The Court’s refusals preserve prevailing lower court rulings on student free speech and racial fairness in jury trials, guiding First Amendment and civil rights practitioners on the current legal landscape.
- On June 8, 2026, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal challenging an elementary student’s ban on wearing an AR-15-themed hat at school, affirming school authority over student expression.
- The Court also refused an appeal from death row inmate Andre Tharpe, who alleged racial discrimination in jury selection where only one out of 12 jurors (8.3%) was Black despite a 40% Black population in the jurisdiction.
- Lower courts had ruled in favor of the school and rejected Tharpe’s racial bias claims, findings now left intact by the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant review.
- Marcia Widder, Tharpe’s counsel, called the decision “an affront to fairness and decency,” underscoring ongoing civil rights concerns in jury selection.
On June 8, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear two cases that raised significant constitutional and civil rights questions, effectively leaving lower court rulings in place.
The first case involved Cox v. Birmingham School District, in which an elementary school student was prohibited from wearing a hat depicting an AR-15 rifle at school. The student’s appeal argued this restriction violated the First Amendment, which protects free speech, including political expression by students. The lower federal court upheld the school’s ban, citing its interest in preventing disruptive messages. By refusing to hear the case, the Supreme Court signaled it would not disturb established limits on student speech in educational settings.
The second case, Tharpe v. State, concerned death row inmate Andre Tharpe's claim of racial discrimination during jury selection. Tharpe challenged his trial’s jury composition, where only 8.3% of jurors were Black, despite the local Black community making up approximately 40% of the population. Lower courts had declined to find sufficient evidence of racial bias affecting the jury. The Supreme Court's refusal to review the appeal leaves this precedent intact.
Marcia Widder, attorney for Tharpe, criticized the Court’s decision: "Allowing Mr. Tharpe's death sentence to stand is an affront to fairness and decency to which we, as a society, should aspire." Her comments highlight continuing disputes over equity and civil rights protections in the criminal justice system.
These denials underscore the Court’s current reluctance to expand constitutional protections for student expression or revisit established standards on racial discrimination claims in jury selection. Legal practitioners in First Amendment and civil rights law can rely on the status quo as these significant issues await further judicial developments.
By the numbers:
- June 8, 2026 — Date the Supreme Court denied both appeals
- 8.3% — Percentage of Black jurors in Tharpe’s trial jury
- ~40% — Black population in Tharpe’s trial jurisdiction