california freedom-of-speech school
Can private schools in CA require a uniform?
<p>California has what's known as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Law" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Leonard's law</a> that protects free speech when on a private school campus, whereas the rest of the country says private schools can control speech on their campuses.</p>

<p>I'm asking specifically about a Lasallian school which is a religious school and Leonard's law says that the school can restrict speech if it is against the religious tenets of the organization. Now I don't think school uniforms fall are part of the tenets of Catholicism, so why can private schools enforce dress codes?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Leonard's law says that the school can restrict speech if it is
  against the religious tenets of the organization. Now I don't think
  school uniforms fall are part of the tenets of Catholicism, so why can
  private schools enforce dress codes?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I see there's a misunderstanding of the Leonard's law. But I fault the California legislators (not you) for that confusion, since the <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=EDC&amp;division=10.&amp;title=3.&amp;part=59.&amp;chapter=3.3.&amp;article=" rel="nofollow noreferrer">statutory language</a> is ambiguous and leads to the reasonable interpretation your inquiry reflects. The statute reads:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(c) This section does not apply to a private postsecondary educational
  institution that is controlled by a religious organization, to the
  extent that the application of this section would not be consistent
  with the religious tenets of the organization.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It is not that a religious school is allowed to restrict speech <em>if</em> it contravenes the tenets of that religion, but that the statute altogether is inapplicable to religious schools <em>because</em> it is considered an infringement of fundamental liberties to which religious institutions are entitled in the US.</p>

<p>The [religious] school would prevail on the basis of the <em>ecclesiastical abstention</em> doctrine. See <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/inkyco20170728321" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Dermody v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)</em>, 530 S.W.3d 467, 474 (2017)</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine prohibits courts from deciding
  cases "dependent on the question of doctrine, discipline,
  ecclesiastical law, rule, or custom, or church government[.]".</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(Please note that I strongly disagree with the application of that doctrine in the <em>Dermody</em> case and I consider it impermissibly outdated for the controversy litigated therein, but that is a separate issue).</p>

<p>A religious school could convincingly argue that the judicial review of its uniforms policy infringes matters of ecclesiastical discipline/rule/custom, aspects which ultimately "<em>involve an internal church dispute over religious authority or dogma</em>" <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/200524132calrptr3d2091219" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Roman Cath. Archbishop of LA v. Super. Ct.</em>, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 209, 220 (2005)</a>.</p>

<p>Infringements of <em>ecclesiastical abstention</em> and akin doctrines would be outweighed only in </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"compelling" [cases] because "the duty to prosecute persons who commit
  serious crimes is part and parcel of the government's `paramount
  responsibility for the general safety and welfare of all its
  citizens'"</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/200524132calrptr3d2091219" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Roman Cath. Archbishop of LA v. Super. Ct.</em> at 225</a> (brackets added in this answer). A free speech controversy such as the school's uniform policy simply does not meet that threshold.</p>
