Arnold v. Barbers Hill Independent School District

What’s at stake: Ensuring that seemingly “neutral” school dress and grooming codes do not discriminate against students on the basis of race, gender, or cultural identity.

This case challenges a discriminatory dress and grooming code administered by a Texas public high school. The case was filed in May of 2020 on behalf of students De’Andre Arnold, Kaden Bradford, and De’Andre’s mother Sandy Arnold against the Barbers Hill Independent School District (BHISD). The dress and grooming code at issue includes a hair policy that harshly disciplines boys who refuse to cut their culturally significant hair. In the spring of 2020, De’Andre and Kaden – who had been growing uncut locs for years in homage to their Black and Trinidadian heritage – found themselves assigned to indefinite in-school suspension and excluded from extracurricular activities and graduation because of the policy.

The two students sued in the Southern District of Texas, bringing claims alleging that BHISD’s hair policy is wholly arbitrary, intentionally discriminatory based on race and gender (including facially gender-based discriminatory language), and unfairly and selectively enforced against Black male students. The lawsuit also alleges that BHISD’s hair policy is a violation the former students’ right to freedom of expression and seeks relief from BHISD’s retaliation against Mrs. Arnold after she spoke out against the policy. On August 29, 2020, the court issued a preliminary injunction forbidding BHISD from enforcing the hair policy against Plaintiffs. The injunction was too late for De’Andre, who missed graduating with his peers because of the policy. Because of the injunction, however, Kaden was able to return to BHISD for his junior and senior year and wear his culturally significant locs unencumbered.

While both students have graduated from high school the case continues to proceed towards trial as the former students seek declaratory and monetary relief.  The case was proceeding to trial when the school district filed an interlocutory appeal of a pretrial discovery order. The case has since been stayed pending resolution of the appeal. On February 7, 2024 and September 2, 2025, Plaintiffs argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concerning the applicability of legislative privilege to school district and board officials. The outcome remains pending.

Core legal question: This case explores how seemingly neutral policies may be a proxy for discrimination. School dress and grooming policies that prohibit Afros, locs, braids, twists, or other hair textures, types, and formations commonly or historically associated with race can disproportionally target and penalize Black youth. Such policies fail to recognize the cultural significance of certain hair styles or formations, particularly for Black, Indigenous, and other students of color. These policies are often premised on discriminatory stereotypes about the appropriateness or acceptability of racially or culturally significant hairstyles. Black people have long battled the prevalent stereotype that natural and protective styles and formations are unsanitary, unkempt, and unsuitable for school and work environments.