The Alliance Defense Fund and Advocates for Faith and Freedom on March 25 filed their opening brief with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In February a federal district judge ruled for a second time that Tyler Chase Harper's freedom of speech and free exercise of religion rights were not violated when administrators punished him for wearing the T-shirt during the 2004 Day of Silence observation at the high school. The Day of Silence is an annual event to protest harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered students.

Tim Chandler, an ADF attorney for the Harpers, said the previous case did not consider the school district's policies, but focused only on Tyler's T-shirt.

"The policies are incredibly broad and target any speech that's negative or offensive," he said. "The bottom line is students don't sacrifice their free speech rights on campus. We're confident that the court will not look favorably on these policies."

Harper first filed suit in June 2004 and asked the district court for an injunction to allow him to wear the T-shirt while the case proceeded. Both the U.S. district court and the 9th Circuit denied the injunction. During this time Harper's sister, Kelsie, was added as a plaintiff in the case.

In January 2007, before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Harper's injunction request, the district court ruled against Harper's First Amendment claims, saying the school's actions were justified because administrators were protecting gay students from harassment. Two months later, the U.S. Supreme Court said it could not rule on the injunction because the district court already ruled on the merits of the case. But it vacated the 9th Circuit's injunction denial. The district court agreed to reconsider the case but again ruled against the Harpers.

In their latest appeal, the Harpers say the school's policies banning hate speech do not "respect the broader free speech rights students enjoy under California law. Rather, they utilize broadly subjective standards that sweep in a broad array of protected expression without adequate standards to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. As such, the policies are facially unconstitutional and violate the law."

Chandler said there have been no talks of a settlement. The school district has until the end of April to file a response.

Jack Sleeth, Poway Unified School District attorney, declined to comment on the appeal.