FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TYLER CHASE HARPER, a minor, by  and through his parents Ron and Cheryl Harper; RON HARPER; CHERYL HARPER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; JEFF MANGUM; LINDA VANDERVEEN; PENNY RANFTYLE; STEVE MCMILLAN; ANDY PATAPOW, All Individually and in their official capacity as Members No. 04-57037 of the Board of the Poway Unified D.C. No. School District; DONALD A. PHILLIPS, CV-04-01103-JAH Individually, and in his official Southern District capacity as Superintendent of the  of California, Poway Unified School District; San Diego SCOTT FISHER, Individually and in his ORDER official capacity as Principal of AMENDING Poway High School; LYNELL OPINION ANTRIM, Individually and in her official capacity as Assistant Principal of Poway High School; ED GILES, Individually and in his official capacity as Vice Principal of Poway High School; DAVID LEMASTER, Individually and in his official capacity as Teacher of Poway High School; DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, Defendants-Appellees.  5909 5910 HARPER v. POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Filed May 31, 2006 Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Alex Kozinski, and Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges.

ORDER The majority opinion filed April 29, 2006, is hereby amended as follows: 1. At Slip Op. at 4676, footnote 28, at the end of the footnote, add: “We do not exclude, however, the possibility that some verbal assaults on the core characteristics of majority high school students would merit application of the Tinker “intrusion upon the rights of other students” prong. That ques- tion is not presently before us.”

The dissenting opinion filed April 29, 2006, is hereby amended as follows: 1. At Slip Op. at 4710, footnote 11, between <Id. at 4667.> and <Read broadly, this would protect>, add: “The majority also does not “exclude . . . the possibility that some verbal assaults on the core characteristics of majority high school students would merit application of the Tinker ‘intrusion upon the rights of other students’ prong.” Id. at ___ n.28.

Appellants’ petition for rehearing en banc is still pending before this court.

PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2006 Thomson/West.