This dissertation traces the way hair is framed in judicial texts about dress code policy in the U.S. between 1969 and 2023. Using 46 court cases from district, appellate, state supreme, and federal supreme courts, the study first considers how dress code is brought to courts over these 54 years, and the kinds of legal claims made in these cases. I find that student plaintiffs primarily leverage the 1st, 14th, and 9th Amendments, as well as Title IX and the Civil Rights Act. The study then traces how courts' judgments--both the actual decision itself as well as the language used in the disposition--create narratives around student identity, speech, and rights as manifest in hair and dress. I find major themes that emerge include a focus on (White) boys' hair, student criminal activity, student political speech, and questions around gender. Using a Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Race Feminist approach to analysis, I highlight how the courts' process and narratives contribute to erasure of students of color, girl students, and other subgroups not represented in the legal data. Findings support the (re)consideration of the CROWN Act. Adopted by 23 states, CROWN (Create a Respectful and Open World for Natural hair) aims to protect and encourage natural hairstyle representation in organizations like schools. Findings also support the nationwide adoption of the CROWN Act. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]