Loc’d Out of the Classroom
[George v. Abbott, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139041 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2024)]
Summary:
A Texas District Court dismissed most of the lawsuit claims filed by a Black high school student against Barbers Hill Independent School District, where he accused the school of racial and gender discrimination for enforcing a policy that restricted boys’ hair length. The school district, arguing that his dreadlocks violated the rule, maintained that the policy was neutral. In response to punishment, George and his family argued that the school district violated the CROWN Act (Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair), a recently enacted Texas law, among various other claims. The court ruled in favor of the school district, highlighting the “neutral” policy and finding no relevance to the enforcement of the CROWN Act on restrictions imposed on hair length. While state and local laws protecting Black hair mark a significant step toward greater socio-cultural acceptance, it is evident that the federal and judicial system must play a greater role in interpretation and guidance to dismantle cultural insensitive education polices that target Black students.
The case of George v. Abbott[1] may very well shine an unflattering light on the weaponization of black hair, particularly where Black children are penalized for their natural or protective hairstyles. In this case, a Texas federal district court ruled that Daryl George’s locs violated the school district’s dress code policy regarding the maximum hair length for male students.[2] The court found no evidence of racial discrimination, among other claims, arguing that George’s claims of racially targeted policies were insufficient, given that non-Black students had also been found in violation of the same dress and grooming code.[3] Thus, the court held this policy was not “applied in a disparate manner,” and not discriminatory.[4]
However, policies like those established in Barbers Hill Independent School District are discriminatory in nature because they undermine students’ individuality and, in the case of Black students who are the primary wearers of braided or loc’d hair, are kept from maintaining their Black hair care practices.[5] Enforcing a seemingly “neutral” policy essentially serves as a preventative measure among administrators to avoid understanding the cultural needs of Black students, which the court explicitly endorses.
From the inception of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964[6] to the CROWN Act[7] (Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act), both frameworks aim to safeguard inherent traits and combat discrimination based on hairstyles. While the CROWN Act has not yet achieved codification into federal law, many state and local legislatures have stepped in and protected African American hair within their jurisdictions.[8] Despite these efforts, courts remain reluctant to uphold protections for Black hairstyles.[9] This reluctance stems from a lack of cultural competence within the courts, which is due to them identifying Black hair as a mutable characteristic.[10] As a result, hairstyles are frequently referred to as changeable, overlooking their profound socio-cultural and racial significance.[11]
The racialized perceptions of Black hair have long been contentious in K-12 educational and workplace policies.[12] In particular, Black hair in its natural state or protective style, such as braids and locs, has been central to legal disputes, highlighting the ongoing tension between White-dominated western societies and people of African descent.[13]
In August 2023, Daryl George, a student at Barbers Hill High School located in Texas, claimed that he had maintained his hair in its natural state through locs for several years and had not cut his hair since his locs had formed.[14] The school enforced a dress and grooming policy for students that included a designated hair length deemed to be permissible for both male and female students, though these standards differed by gender.[15] In objection to cutting his locs, which had been maintained in a twisted style above his neck, the school district argued that George’s hair violated the school policy because it would fall below his shirt collar, eyebrows, or earlobes if let down.[16] As a result, George had been placed in in-school suspension and separated from other students during educational instruction.[17] He also alleged mistreatment, stating that the school only provided him with sandwiches and water for lunch despite his qualifications for free hot lunches.[18] The legal proceedings between George and the school district start on September 20, 2023, when the school district filed for declaratory relief in a state district court.[19] On September 23, 2023, George’s family filed a lawsuit against the state’s governor and attorney general, alleging that they failed to enforce the new anti-discrimination law based on hairstyles, known as the CROWN Act.[20] The Act had become law in Texas in September 2023 with the intent to bar any race-based hair discrimination in employment and schools.[21]
In addition to his claims under the CROWN Act, George’s federal claims included an Equal Protection claim based on sex and race discrimination, a First Amendment claim, a Title VI and Title IX claim, and several state tort law claims based on governmental immunity.[22] In response, the school district argued that the state’s CROWN Act solely protects hair texture and hairstyles, but does not address hair length.[23] While George’s claims were ongoing in federal court, the State District Judge Chap B. Cain III ruled in favor of Barbers Hill Independent School District in its original state court claim, finding that the school district had not violated the recently enacted state law prohibiting race-based hair discrimination when punishing George for refusing to change his hairstyle.[24]
Subsequently, George filed a civil rights claim in federal court, heard by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, seeking redress under a federal ruling.[25] His complaint encompassed multiple allegations; including qualified immunity, race discrimination, due process, First Amendment, as well as statutory and state law claims.[26] Central to the lawsuit was the contention that the school district’s policies were disproportionately enforced against Black students.[27]
One of the major contentions held by George v. Abbott is that the CROWN Act does not protect against the length of black hair, rather it protects the hairstyle.[28] However, the very essence of the CROWN Act, as stated by Representative Ayanna Pressley is to “intentionally create space for all of us to show up in the world as our authentic selves – whether it’s in the classroom, in the workplace or in the halls of Congress.”[29] The Act was first introduced in Congress in December 2019 to address racial discrimination and clarify the misinterpretation of current federal anti-discrimination laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[30] This prohibition would apply to federally assisted programs, housing programs, public accommodations, and employers.[31] Unfortunately, it did not pass the Senate in March 2022.[32] In May 2024, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker reintroduced the act in the Senate.[33] Despite such efforts, hair discrimination remains unaddressed by federal laws.[34]
Although Title VII’s prohibition of race discrimination includes the discrimination on the basis of hair,[35] courts tend to ignore the language, reasoning that, unlike skin color, hairstyles are not immutable characteristics.[36] Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination in employment on the basis of protected characteristics such as race, national origin, religion, and sex.[37] Race discrimination under Title VII may be brought as a disparate treatment claim or disparate impact claim.[38]
In contrast, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 addressed racial discrimination in education and applies to entities receiving federal funding.[39] Unlike Title VII, Title VI does not require a plaintiff to prove intentional discrimination; instead, it allows claims of disparate impact.[40] This distinction could strengthen George’s case if the court would have engaged in evidence of disproportionate enforcement of grooming policies against Black students. However, courts have been reluctant to recognize disparate impact claims under Title VI without compelling statistical evidence.[41]
A disparate treatment claim requires the plaintiff to demonstrate intentional discrimination, which plaintiffs can prove through direct or circumstantial evidence under the McDonnell Douglas framework.[42] According to this framework, the plaintiff must show that they belong to a protected class, were qualified for the position or adequately performing that position, suffered an adverse employment action, and were treated less favorably than individuals outside of their protected class or were subject to intentional discrimination.[43]
Disparate impact claims often offer a higher likelihood of success for plaintiffs.[44] To establish such a claim, a plaintiff must show that the policy disproportionately burdens individuals of a particular race.[45] This is typically shown through data and statistical evidence highlighting significant disparities between the affected groups and others.[46] Once the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of disparate treatment or disparate impact, the burden then shifts to the employer to prove that the policy is a business necessity.[47]
When a claim is brought under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which asserts that, “[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,”[48] the plaintiff must show that they were treated differently than similarly situated individuals due to their membership in a protected class.[49] Federal laws provide avenues for bringing discrimination claims to court. However, federal courts have historically been inconsistent when addressing Black hair discrimination, while only a few states have begun to close the gap.[50]
In 2019, California became the first state to ban discrimination on the basis of natural hair for students and employees.[51] During the same year, New York followed California’s footsteps by passing the New York City Human Rights Law.[52]
While state-level action represents significant progress, it also underscores the need for broader federal legislation to ensure uniformity and consistency against hair discrimination across the country.[53] A comprehensive federal standard could effectively close the gaps in protection and prevent disparate treatment of individuals based on their natural hairstyles. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, it is vital for federal courts and legislators to recognize the right to cultural expression in an educational and professional environment.[54]
After hearing legal arguments by both sides, the U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown found in favor of the school district, holding that Daryl George’s free speech rights had not been violated.[55] However, in the court’s analysis, Judge Brown questioned whether the school district’s policy had crafted more harm than good, citing from Justice Scalia that “not everything that is undesirable, annoying, or even harmful amounts to a violation of the law, much less a constitutional problem.”[56]
In addition to the free speech claim, Judge Brown dismissed various other claims alleged by George, including due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because the school district refused to allow an exemption for race in the same way that exemptions are provided for religion.[57] The only claim left standing is the allegation of sex discrimination based on the school district’s lack of a clearly defined policy for girls to have long hair, but boys could not.[58] In ruling in such a manner, he stated that while the school district provided reasons for the dress code, “they provide no support for the narrower question that forms the basis of this claim: what is the rationale for the dress code’s distinction between male and female students?”[59]
At the end of the ruling, Judge Brown highlighted a 1972 school district case in El Paso, Texas, that stated that “the presence and enforcement of the hair-cut rule causes far more disruption of the classroom instructional process than the hair it seeks to prohibit,” which the court regrettably found here.[60]
Arguably, the length of a student’s neatly styled hair should not be under federal scrutiny, yet the regulation of Black hair has deep historical roots that extend far beyond this Texas lawsuit.[61] Historically, enslaved Africans were once forced to cut their hair as a means of erasing their identities.[62] Thus, hair has served as a means to control and punish Black bodies.[63] During the Jim Crow era, African Americans were often portrayed as “nappy-haired caricatures” with exaggerated features in demeaning marketing materials.[64] Today, prevailing beauty standards have led to the proliferation of chemical treatments and hot combs, aimed at altering natural texture to conform to societal norms of professionalism.[65]
Black identity and culture have always been connected to their hair.[66] Because of the establishment of White standards as a norm for humanity, embracing natural Black hair can be seen as an act of resistance.[67] Thus, hair discrimination functions as a vessel for racism. The case discussed here, in addition to centuries of policies eradicating cultural authenticity, not only impacted Black people psychologically but also affects one’s access to education, opportunity, and capital.[68]
The theme of educational policies implemented in schools tends to show that they are opposed to Black cultural practices that are unique to Black students As Clinton Stanley wrote about a private school refusing a prospective student because of his dreadlocks, “[i]t’s not right for a school to take taxpayer dollars while singling out and shaming Black natural hair.”[69] Such actions by schools represent an apparent form of anti-blackness that seeks to suppress rather than foster Black students’ personhood and humanity.[70]
The system, as it is currently applied to hair discrimination, has prompted the rapid development of legislation on state and local levels.[71] However, issues such as hair discrimination should be primarily governed by federal law and enforced through the judicial system. The present case and cases prior have relied heavily on federal anti-discrimination laws to guide their answers, highlighting the necessity of federal oversight in imposing limitations on discrimination present in employment and schools.[72]
A notable precedent for such federal intervention is Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mutual Hospital.[73] In that case, the plaintiff brought a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that her employment was terminated based on her race and hairstyles.[74] The court, interpreting Title VII broadly, stated that such claims could be actionable to prevent employer bias against natural hairstyles, such as afros in the workplace.[75] Under this landmark case, the Seventh Circuit addressed legal implications on hair discrimination and found that the plaintiff might be able to recover under a Title VII claim.[76]
Judicial intervention is vital as state, local, and federal laws are passed. However, organizations and institutions often resist such legislation due to the complexities of compliance with varying competing laws.[77] For instance, these groups would need to remain knowledgeable about constantly changing legislation in the states that they do business, calling into question the burdening impact that abreast understanding of Black hair standards imposes on their compliance measures.[78] The seemingly lazy explanation highlights the considerable need for judicial intervention that imposes a baseline standard in the approach of accepting diverse appearances.
The reasoning behind the usefulness of the courts is that despite local authority to impose ordinances that are novel and of great value, states retain the power to overrule local legislation in most cases.[79] This is known as preemption.[80] Further, even if a local ordinance is in place, the interpretation of such ordinance is left to the courts’ discretion.[81]
Title VI offers an underutilized avenue for combating racialized grooming policies in education.[82] While state and local laws, such as the CROWN Act aim to address these issues, federal courts have been inconsistent in their application of Title VI to cases of cultural discrimination, such as Black hair.[83] To create uniformity, federal courts could interpret Title VI to encompass policies that are facially neutral but have a racial impact. Judicial recognition of these claims could create a precedent that enforces protection similar to the CROWN Act and ensure federally funded programs uphold Black students’ rights to maintain their cultural identity.
Although federal courts have failed to treat these instances as unlawful race discrimination, scholars have also discussed a three-part standard, also known as the “New Standard” that could be utilized by courts to prevent hair discrimination in employment settings.[84] This includes that (1) the court would determine whether the impact is “disproportionate and adverse” on the employment opportunities of a protected class of individuals; (2) whether the policy is discriminatory against a characteristic that is “historically or culturally associated” with the racial class; and (3) if the employer is “objectively justified in creating its policy.”[85] Although this “New Standard” is applied to employment settings,[86] it could be useful in aligning with education policies that are argued to be in the best interest of the learning environment.
Ultimately, Eurocentric standards have harmed Black hair in employment and academic settings, where institutions and workplaces look for uniformity through practices that demand culturally depleting beauty thresholds.[87] For instance, school grooming policies have held Black students to assimilate to White gender norms that expect “well kept” or short hair, resulting in the penalization of otherwise conflicting appearances.
The efforts of state and local governments to protect Black hairstyles are instrumental. However, protection would be adequately served through means of federal law, and most beneficially through judicial intervention. While local laws, ordinances, and legal scholars have primarily focused on hair discrimination in the workplace, it should be acknowledged that discrimination is more comprehensive than that. Natural hair bias continues to create hostile academic environments due to an expectation of professionalism and a lack of cultural awareness among policy enforcers.
The CROWN Act serves as a step towards dismantling Eurocentric standards, though its enforcement is ultimately dependent on judicial enforcement. Students like Daryl George attend school to learn, yet Black students have been forced to navigate discriminatory academic policies that hinder their ability to express their authentic selves while receiving their education.[88] Only through cohesive federal and judicial action can Black students and employees ensure that they are not denied the right to express themselves freely without fear of restriction.
[1]See George v. Abbott, No. 3:24-cv-12, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139041 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2024).
[2]Id. at *16.
[3]Id. at *16–17.
[4]Id. at *15–17.
[5]See Chaddrick D. James-Gallaway & Autumn A. Griffin, “It’s in [Their] Roots”: A Critical Race Discourse Analysis of Media Accounts Depicting Black Hair Discrimination in K-12 School, 56 Urban Rev.: Issues and Ideas in Pub. Ed. 35, 36 (2024).
[6]Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.
[7]CROWN Act of 2022, H.R. 2116, 117th Cong. (2021); About, The CROWN Act, https://www.thecrownact.com/about [https://perma.cc/TTU7-7CWJ] (last visited June 14, 2025).
[8]See Texas: The CROWN Act, https://web.archive.org/web/20250212143041/https://texascrownact.org/ (last visited June 14, 2025); Martin Childs IV, Comment, Who Told You Your Hair Was Nappy?: A Proposal for Replacing an Ineffective Standard for Determining Racially Discriminatory Employment Practices, 2019 Mich. St. L. Rev. 287, 314–15 (2019); Alesha Hamilton, Untangling Discrimination: The CROWN Act and Protecting Black Hair, 89 U. Cin. L. Rev. 483, 498 (2021) (states like New York and California have becomes the first to prohibit employers from engaging in racial discrimination based on hair).
[9]Childs IV, supra note 8, at 313.
[10]Hamilton, supra note 8, at 495.
[11]Sheryl Osakue, Do Not Mess with My CROWN: The CROWN Act is a Step for Black Men and Women to Be Accepted and Valued for Their Unique Cultural Expressions, 25 Rutgers Race & L. Rev. 147, 159 (2024).
[12]See James-Gallaway & Griffin, supra note 5, at 38.
[13]See id. at 36–37.
[14]George v. Abbott, No. 4:23-cv-03609, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3379, at *1–2 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2024).
[15]George v. Abbott, No. 3:24-cv-12, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139041, at *2, 14 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2024).
[16]Juan A. Lozano, Judge Dismisses Most Claims in Federal Lawsuit Filed by Black Texas Student Punished Over Hairstyle, Tex. Trib. (Aug. 7, 2024, 1:00 PM), https://www.texastribune.org/2024/08/07/s-crown-act-hairstyle-lawsuit/ [https://perma.cc/TG44-24FC].
[17]George, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3379, at *2.
[18]Id.
[19]Id.
[20]Id. at *3.
[21]Jonnette Oakes, Judge Rules in Favor of Texas School After Student Claimed Race-Based Hair Discrimination, JURISTnews (Feb. 23, 2024, 12:46 PM), https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/02/judge-rules-in-favor-of-texas-school-after-student-claimed-race-based-hair-discrimination/ [https://perma.cc/W6H4-L5SZ].
[22]George v. Abbott, No:3:24-cv-12, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139041, at *10–25 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2024).
[23]Oakes, supra note 23; George, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3379, at *2–3.
[24]Id.; Final Judgment, Barbers Hill Independent School District v. ex rel. D.G. (253rd Dist. Tex. Mar. 25, 2024) (No. 23DCV0776), https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1723052437/bhisd/bspy2furrqhzr4fxmhj2/StateRuling.pdf [https://perma.cc/Z4WE-7FGS].
[25]See generally George, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139041.
[26]See id. at *10–25.
[27]Id. at *21–22.
[28]Oakes, supra note 23.
[29]Elizabeth Crisp, U.S. Rep. Cedric Richmond Joins Fight to Ban Racial Discrimination Based on Hair Styles, The Advocate (Dec. 31, 2019), https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/u-s-rep-cedric-richmond-joins-fight-to-ban-racial-discrimination-based-on-hair-styles/article_43f1b5ac-2818-11ea-abd6-37d8fb4a4acd.html.
[30]The CROWN Act of 2020, H.R. 5309, 116th Cong. (2019).
[31]Id.
[32]See Pressley Calls out Senate Republicans for Blocking Passage of the CROWN Act, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (Dec. 14, 2022), https://pressley.house.gov/2022/12/14/pressley-calls-out-senate-republicans-for-blocking-passage-of-crown-act/ [https://perma.cc/ZDE9-WTEQ].
[33]The CROWN Act of 2024, S. 4224, 118th Cong. (2024).
[34]Hamilton, supra note 8, at 503.
[35]EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 15-II, No. EEOC-CVG-2006-1, (Apr. 19, 2006), https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/race-color.html#II [https://perma.cc/4DNH-RTTH].
[36]Crystal Powell, Bias, Employment Discrimination, and Black Women’s Hair: Another Way Forward, 2018 BYU L. Rev. 933, 967 (2019).
[37]See Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 425 (1971) (The Supreme Court interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to not only address explicit or overt acts of discrimination, but to also apply to policies that might seem neutral on their face but result in discrimination).
[38]Dena Elizabeth Robinson & Tyra Robinson, Between a Loc and a Hard Place: A Socio-Historical, Legal, and Intersectional Analysis of Hair Discrimination and Title VII, 20 U. Md. L.G. Race Relig. Gender & Class 263, 266 (2020).
[39]Education and Title VI, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/civil-rights-laws/civil-rights-act-of-1964/education-and-title-vi#:~:text=Title%20VI%20states%20that%3A,activity%20receiving%20federal%20financial%20assistance [https://perma.cc/Q5MU-RB9N] (last visited Apr. 11, 2025).
[40]Robinson & Robinson, supra note 40.
[41]See Kimberly Jenkins Robinson & Gedá Jones Herbert, Preventing and Remedying Race, Color, and National Origin Discrimination in Schools: A Primer on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, at 11, https://www.law.virginia.edu/document/title-vi-primer/view.
[42]Robinson & Robinson, supra note 40.
[43]Venessa Simpson, What’s Going On Hair?: Untangling Societal Misconceptions That Stop Braids, Twists, and Dreads from Receiving Deserved Title VII Protection, 47. Sw. L. Rev. 265, 279 (2017).
[44]See id. at 283.
[45]Id.
[46]Robinson & Robinson, supra note 40, at 266–67.
[47]Simpson, supra note 46, at 283.
[48]U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
[49]Russell W. Galloway Jr., Basic Equal Protection Analysis, 29 Santa Clara L. Rev. 121, 125–25 (1989).
[50]See Kathleen Creedon, What are the Implications of Black, Natural Hair Discrimination at School and Work?, Tex. Pub. Radio (Aug. 23, 2020, 7:28 PM), https://www.tpr.org/show/the-source/2020-08-23/what-are-the-implications-of-black-natural-hair-discrimination-at-school-and-work [https://perma.cc/YB9A-Q87N].
[51]See Cal. Stat. ch. 58, S.B. 188 (2019) (codified at Cal. Educ. Code § 212.1).
[52]Chastity Henry, Knot Today: A Look at Hair Discrimination in the Workplace and Schools, 46 T. Marshall L. Rev. 29, 44 (2021); NYC Comm’n on Hum. Rts., NYC Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Race Discrimination on the Basis of Hair (Feb. 2019), https://www.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/Hair-Guidance.pdf [https://perma.cc/U72G-TWUJ].
[53]See Henry, supra note 55, at 37.
[54]Id. at 38.
[55]George v. Abbott, No. 3:24-cv-12, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139041, at *19–21 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2024).
[56]Id. at *27 (quoting Brown v. Chi. Bd. Of Educ., 824 F.3d 713, 714 (7th Cir. 2016)).
[57]Id. at *18–19.
[58]Id. at *10–14.
[59]Id. at *14.
[60]Id. at *27 (quoting Karr v. Schmidt, 460 F.2d 609, 613 (1972)).
[61]Karen Attiah, Texas Insists on Discriminating Against Black Hair, Wash. Post (Mar. 4, 2024), https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/03/04/texas-crown-act-black-hair-discrimination/.
[62]Id.
[63]See Barbara J. Heath, Buttons, Beads, and Buckles: Contextualizing Adornment Within the Bounds of Slavery 54–55 (Maria Franklin & Garrett Fesler eds., 1999).
[64]Hamilton, supra note 8, at 492.
[65]Childs IV, supra note 8, at 304.
[66]Robinson & Robinson, supra note 40, at 274.
[67]Id. at 279.
[68]See generally Aysa Gray, The Bias of ‘Professionalism’ Standards, Stan. Soc. Innovation Rev. (June 4, 2019), https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_bias_of_professionalism_standards# [https://perma.cc/W9HJ-6JCN]; see also Caitlin Mullen, Black Women’s Hair Choices Can Affect Their Job Chances, Study Says, Bus. J. (Aug. 24, 2020), https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2020/08/black-womens-hair-choices-can-affect-their-job.html?page=all.
[69]Clinton Stanley, My Black Son Was Sent Home From First Grade Because of His Natural Hair, ACLU (Nov. 29, 2018), https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/my-black-son-was-sent-home-first-grade-because-his [https://perma.cc/5A3R-BLBL]; see also Jeffrey S. Solocheck, Parent Files Complaint Against Orange County Private School that Refused Their Son Because of His Dreadlocks, Tampa Bay Times (Nov. 30, 2018), https://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/2018/11/29/parents-file-complaint-against-orange-county-private-school-that-refused-their-son-because-of-his-dreadlocks/ [https://perma.cc/FS2S-8GJP].
[70]James-Gallaway & Griffin, supra note 5, at 52.
[71]See Charisse Jones & Nicquel T. Ellis, Banning Ethnic Hairstyles ‘Upholds This Notion of White Supremacy.’ States Pass Laws to Stop Natural Hair Discrimination, USA TODAY (Oct. 14, 2019, 2:20 PM), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/14/black-hair-laws-passed-stop-natural-hairdiscrimination-across-us/3850402002/ [https://perma.cc/PZ7Y-S4WM].
[72]See generally George v. Abbott, No. 3:24-cv-12, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139041 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2024).
[73]See generally Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc., 538 F.2d 164 (7th Cir. 1976).
[74]Id. at 165.
[75]Id. at 167–68 (quoting Motorola, Inc. v. McLain, 484 F.2d 1339, 1344 (7th Cir. 1973)).
[76]Id. at 166.
[77]Hamilton, supra note 8, at 504.
[78]Id.
[79]Id. at 488.
[80]See Bradley Pough, Understanding the Rise of Super Preemption in State Legislatures, 34 J.L. & Pol. 67, 77 (2018) (“preemption is neither a necessary nor an intuitive practice in a system where subsidiary governments possess lawmaking authority. Instead, state preemption is a recent phenomenon responding to modern changes to the laws governing city power.”).
[81]Id. at 77–78.
[82]See Education and Title VI, supra note 41.
[83]See Hamilton, supra note 8, at 501.
[84]Childs IV, supra note 8, at 322–43.
[85]Id. at 328-31.
[86]See id.
[87]Henry, supra note 55, at 48.
[88]See Brianna D. Gaddy, What’s Hair Got To Do With It?: How School Hair Policies Violate the United States Constitution, 6 Admin L. Rev. Accord 155, 171 (2021).