Schools often have a dress code that requires school uniforms or that limits clothing styles—such as policies of no tank tops, shorts, low-cut tops, pants worn below the waistline, or suggestive, provocative, or controversial messages. Some schools extend these dress code policies to hairstyles, headwraps, hair color, and facial hair.

These policies are sometimes challenged by students on free speech grounds (under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) and on discrimination grounds. Schools are required to meet a high burden to justify restricting their students’ right to freedom of speech.

Each school policy and claim of a violation of law must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis but schools are generally allowed to restrict clothing, speech, and hairstyle choices only if they would likely disrupt the educational environment of the school and interfere with school activities—including by causing tension and discord among the students or teachers.

In Massachusetts, schools are permitted to implement dress codes and policies that may include the requirement of school uniforms or restrictions on certain types of clothing and hairstyles. These policies can prohibit items like tank tops, shorts, low-cut tops, pants worn below the waistline, or clothing with provocative messages. Schools may also regulate hairstyles, headwraps, hair color, and facial hair. While students may challenge these policies on the grounds of free speech under the First Amendment or on discrimination grounds, schools have the authority to enforce dress codes if they can demonstrate that the restricted items would likely disrupt the educational environment or interfere with school activities. This includes preventing tension and discord among students or teachers. However, any restrictions must be reasonable and cannot be discriminatory on the basis of race, religion, gender, or other protected characteristics. Each case involving a challenge to a school's dress code policy is assessed individually to determine whether the school has met the necessary burden to justify the restrictions imposed.