Page 7 of 10
and administration had regarding sponsorship of the prom, the board believed the best decision was
for it to withdraw its sponsorship of the prom and get back to its main mission of the education of
The explosion of emotions, both locally and nationally, required the board to address the
disruption to the educational process and evaluate whether it should be in the business of sponsoring
the prom. The board believed that withdrawing its sponsorship of the prom was the best option
available to return the school to some sense of normalcy for the remainder of the school year.
Analysis of Canal Authority Requirements
The affidavit and testimony of Jim Keith informs this Court’s analysis of the four
requirements under Canal Authority for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.
(1) The Plaintiff is not likely to Prevail on the Merits.
Defendant’s withdrawal of sponsorship of the prom does not infringe upon any cognizable
federal constitutional right of Plaintiff. No First Amendment liberties or associational rights are
implicated by the decision to withdraw sponsorship of a school prom that is now being sponsored
by a group of parents of 11th and 12th grade students.
(2) The Plaintiff will not suffer Irreparable Harm.
The Defendant District merely withdrew school sponsorship of the prom. A social event
is now being sponsored by parents for the juniors and seniors. Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights
have not been implicated, nor infringed, by the mere withdrawal of sponsorship of the school
prom, an action the Defendant has discussed and debated for at least the past four years based on
liability concerns. Hence, the Plaintiff can show no irreparable harm.
(3) The Plaintiff’s claim of injury does not outweigh the Potential for Civil Unrest.
The Plaintiff still has the opportunity to attend the social event sponsored by parents. The
harm of enjoining the Defendant District on the other hand would disrupt its ability to govern