Case: 12-60264 Document: 00513162565 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/20/2015 No. 12-60264 school board’s. In doing so, it concluded the rap recording constituted “harassment and intimidation of teachers and possible threats against teachers and threatened, harassed, and intimidated school employees”. Bell, 859 F. Supp. 2d at 840 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court also concluded the rap recording “in fact caused a material and/or substantial disruption at school and . . . it was reasonably foreseeable to school officials the song would cause such a disruption”. Id. Moreover, the court concluded, inter alia: (1) the superintendent and principal were entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities; and (2) Bell’s mother could not show a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment rights (she claimed the school’s disciplining Bell violated her right to make decisions regarding the custody and care of her son). Id. at 841–42. On appeal, only the summary judgment against Bell’s First Amendment claim was challenged. A divided panel in December 2014 held, inter alia: the school board violated Bell’s First Amendment right by disciplining him based on the language in the rap recording. Bell v. Itawamba Cnty. Sch. Bd., 774 F.3d 280, 304–05 (5th Cir. 2014), reh’g en banc granted & opinion vacated, 782 F.3d 712 (5th Cir. 2015). En-banc review was granted in February 2015. II. Because the summary judgment against Bell’s mother’s Fourteenth Amendment claim and for the school officials’ qualified-immunity claim was not contested on appeal, the only issue before our en-banc court is the summary judgment against Bell’s First Amendment claim. (The misconduct alleged by Bell against the two teachers is, of course, not at issue.) A summary judgment is reviewed de novo, applying the same standard as did the district court. E.g., Feist v. La., Dep’t of Justice, Office of the Att’y Gen., 730 F.3d 450, 452 (5th Cir. 2013). Summary judgment is proper when 12