Lovethempokes,
Well, if the school has a "rule" then I guess that's the end of the story.....oh wait, that's right - all "rules" by any governmental body has to be in compliance with all state and federal laws and ultimately the Constitution.
The point you make about the feather: I'm not claiming to be an expert on the particular tribe's culture, but from what I've read, this isn't just a standard feather that one would use to adorn your hair. From the evidence submitted in court, by their tradition it holds some special significance and is not to be worn under something else. (Interestingly there was a similar case in ND a few years back where the identical point was made and the school board made an accommodation.)
Contrary to what many seem to think, allowing an exception for a personal, but legitimate religious belief does NOT just completely overturn the schools rule against adornment. It would only apply to this particular instance and in other cases where a person could likewise show a legitimate religious belief/practice in order to get an exemption/exception to the general rule.
I've shown in my post where the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act is directly on point and it requires that in order to deny someone their ability to freely express themselves in an area of religious belief, the governmental entity seeking to enforce the rule HAS TO BY LAW establish that there is a Compelling Interest in order to do so. I have also shown a Supreme Court decision which establishes the identical criteria.
So yes, IMHO this is a matter of the State (through the local school board) depriving someone of their Individual Constitutional Rights and Liberties through the application of an arbitrary rule, contrary to both State Law and the US Constitution. It's really no different than if a school board somewhere were to try and force a Sikh student to wear a mortarboard over his turban, prevent a Jewish student wearing a yarmulke instead of a mortarboard or a requiring a muslim student to take off her scarf/headress in order to participate in a graduation ceremony. These are all Constitutionally protected RIGHTS of the individual, which outweigh the "Powers" of the State as granted to the government through the Constitution.
At some point, people need to decide whether or not that our Guaranteed Constitutional Rights are actually, in the balance, worth protecting or whether we will simply bow down to every petty dictator and rule that any government official out there makes. Some of you seem to think that this is a waste of time, but in many respects what this girl (and her attorneys) are doing is part of making certain that the government respects the Constitution and gives some semblance of respect in recognizing that ALL of us get to use our guaranteed rights of expression and freedom as established by the Constitution.
As I said, in order to deprive a person of their 1st Amendment rights, the Supreme Court has set the bar very, very high. (As the quote from Justice O'Connor shows.) I just don't see any way that the School Boards rule even comes close to meeting the standard of either the State law or the Federal Constitution. I honestly hope that they will appeal this and keep the issue alive to get an ultimate resolution, because from reading the case law it certainly appears that the magistrate got this one completely wrong.