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 Utah, schools are permitted to implement dress codes and uniform policies that may include restrictions on clothing styles, hairstyles, headwraps, hair color, and facial hair. These policies are designed to promote a conducive educational environment and minimize distractions. However, when students challenge these policies on the grounds of free speech (protected by the First Amendment) or discrimination, schools must demonstrate a substantial justification for the restrictions. The standard used is whether the restricted expression would likely cause a substantial disruption to the educational process or interfere with school operations. This is in line with the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), which allows schools to limit student expression only if it would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school. Each incident where a dress code policy is challenged must be assessed individually, considering the specific circumstances and the nature of the claimed infringement on students' rights.