Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves John Doe, a student who was expelled from Loyola University Chicago after the university concluded that he had engaged in non-consensual sexual activity with Jane Roe, another student. Doe sued the university under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and Illinois contract law, alleging that the university discriminates against men.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of Loyola. Doe appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appellate court, however, raised questions about the use of pseudonyms by the parties and the mootness of the case, given that Doe had already graduated from another university and the usual remedy of readmission was not applicable.The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the district court to address these issues. The court questioned whether compensatory damages were an option for Doe, and if not, the case may not be justiciable. The court also questioned the use of pseudonyms, stating that while anonymity may be common in Title IX suits, it must be justified in each case. The court noted that the public has a right to know who is using their courts and that a desire to keep embarrassing information secret does not justify anonymity. The court also raised concerns about whether revealing Doe's identity would indirectly reveal Roe's identity. The court concluded that these issues should be addressed by the district court. View "Doe v. Loyola University Chicago" on Justia Law

The case revolves around two Senate Bills—2780 and 3064—passed by the Mississippi Legislature in 2022. Senate Bill 2780 established the Independent Schools Infrastructure Grant Program (ISIGP), which allowed independent schools to apply for reimbursable grants for infrastructure projects funded by the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds under the federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Senate Bill 3064 allocated $10 million from the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund to ISIGP. Parents for Public Schools (PPS), a nonprofit organization advocating for public schools, filed a complaint alleging that ISIGP violated the Mississippi Constitution by appropriating public funds to private schools. PPS sought injunctive and declaratory relief, asserting associational standing on behalf of its members.The Chancery Court of Hinds County found that PPS had established associational standing. It also found that Senate Bills 2780 and 3064 violated the Mississippi Constitution by appropriating public funds to private schools. The court denied a motion to intervene by the Midsouth Association of Independent Schools (MAIS), which sought to challenge the constitutionality of the relevant section of the Mississippi Constitution under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.The Supreme Court of Mississippi, however, found that PPS lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. The court determined that PPS failed to demonstrate an adverse impact different from that of the general public. The court noted that the funds at issue were federal, not state, funds earmarked for specific infrastructure needs, and were not commingled with state funds. The court also found that PPS's challenge to general government spending was too attenuated to bestow standing. As a result, the court vacated the judgment of the Hinds County Chancery Court and rendered judgment dismissing PPS's complaint. View "Midsouth Association of Independent Schools v. Parents for Public Schools" on Justia Law

Paul Montemuro was elected as the President of the Jim Thorpe Area School Board. However, a week later, the Board elected someone else without giving Montemuro any prior notice. Montemuro sued the Board members who voted against him and the Jim Thorpe Area School District, alleging that they had deprived him of his property without due process, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendants claimed qualified immunity.The District Court held that Montemuro had a clearly established property right in his employment and had been deprived of that right without due process. The defendants appealed this decision, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court found that Pennsylvania law clearly established that Montemuro had a property interest in his job as the Board President. The Court also accepted Montemuro's allegation that he was removed from office without notice. Therefore, the Court concluded that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because they had violated Montemuro's clearly established right to due process. View "Montemuro v. Jim Thorpe Area School District" on Justia Law

The case involves Dr. Gopal Balakrishnan, a former tenured professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC), who was dismissed and denied emeritus status for sexually abusing a fellow academic at an off-campus academic conference and a UCSC student whom he volunteered to walk home from an off-campus graduation party. Balakrishnan appealed the decision, arguing that the university lacked jurisdiction to discipline him because the victims were not university students, the university misinterpreted and misapplied its own regulations and policies, he did not receive notice of all charges, and the sanctions were excessive.In the lower courts, Balakrishnan filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate to set aside the findings and decision of the Regents of the University of California to terminate his employment and deny him emeritus status. The trial court denied his petition, upholding the university's decision.In the Court of Appeal of the State of California, the court rejected Balakrishnan's contentions and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court found that the university had the authority to discipline Balakrishnan for his off-campus behavior based on its internal policies, rules, and regulations. The court also found that Balakrishnan had received notice of the charges and that the sanctions were not excessive given the severity of his conduct. View "Balakrishnan v. Regents of the University of California" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a law student, Douglas Pell, who was studying at an unaccredited law school and was required to pass the First Year Law Students Exam (FYLSX) as a prerequisite to bar admission. Due to personal circumstances, Pell was unable to take the exam until his sixth opportunity. Despite passing on his first attempt, he was denied credit for 39 hours of courses he had completed after his first year of law school because he did not pass the FYLSX within the first three opportunities. Pell petitioned the State Bar of California for a hearing to excuse his delay and waive the forfeiture of his credits, but his petition was denied without explanation. Instead of petitioning the California Supreme Court to review the State Bar's decision, Pell filed a complaint in federal court.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Pell's case, agreeing with the State Bar that Pell had not suffered a cognizable deprivation under federal law. The court held that the California Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over matters of admission, and challenges regarding the FYLSX or its authorizing statute must be brought by original petition to the California Supreme Court. The State Bar's denial of Pell's petition for a hearing and a waiver of his credit forfeiture was taken in the Bar's advisory role and did not result in a cognizable deprivation of a protected right or property interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Pell's federal claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim, as the State Bar's actions did not cause Pell to suffer a cognizable deprivation under federal law. However, the court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court also reversed the dismissal of Pell's state law claim under California's Unruh Act and remanded the case to the district court to exercise its discretion over whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction or dismiss the claim without prejudice so that it may be pursued in state court. View "Pell v. Nunez" on Justia Law

The case involves Brandon Pryor, an advocate for quality educational opportunities in Far Northeast Denver, who was stripped of his volunteer position and restricted from accessing Denver School District No. 1 facilities after he criticized the district and its officials. The district claimed that Pryor's conduct was abusive, bullying, threatening, and intimidating. Pryor sued the district, Superintendent Alex Marrero, and Deputy Superintendent Anthony Smith, alleging First Amendment retaliation.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted a preliminary injunction in part, enjoining the defendants from enforcing the restrictions and from taking any other retaliatory action against Pryor, his family, or the school he co-founded, the Robert W. Smith STEAM Academy. The defendants appealed the preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Pryor was substantially likely to succeed on the merits of his First Amendment retaliation claim. The court also found that Pryor would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was denied, that the harm to Pryor without the injunction outweighed the harm to the defendants with the injunction, and that the injunction was not adverse to the public interest. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. View "Pryor v. School District No. 1" on Justia Law

A student, John Doe, through his mother, Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit against Rocky Mountain Classical Academy (RMCA), Nicole Blanc, and Cullen McDowell, alleging that the school's dress code, which prohibited boys from wearing earrings, violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. The plaintiff also claimed that the school retaliated against him for complaining about sex discrimination.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the plaintiff's claims, applying the "comparable burdens" test from the Seventh Circuit's decision in Hayden ex rel. A.H. v. Greensburg Cmty. Sch. Corp. The district court found that the dress code imposed comparable burdens on both boys and girls, and therefore did not constitute sex discrimination.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit disagreed with the district court's application of the "comparable burdens" test. The appellate court held that the district court should have applied the intermediate scrutiny standard, which requires a sex-based classification to serve important governmental objectives and be substantially related to achieving those objectives. The court found that the plaintiff had stated a claim upon which relief could be granted under both the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, as the school had not provided an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for its sex-based classification. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's sex discrimination claims.However, the appellate court agreed with the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's Title IX retaliation claim. The court found that the plaintiff had not stated a plausible claim for retaliation, as the complaint only permitted the inference that the school took disciplinary actions because of the plaintiff's dress code violations. View "Doe v. Rocky Mountain Classical Academy" on Justia Law

The case involves a medical student at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, referred to as John Doe, who was accused of physical abuse by a fellow student, Jane Roe. The University’s Office of Student Conduct found Doe culpable and suspended him for one year. Doe applied to the University’s MBA program and described his suspension as an exoneration. This led to an investigation by the University’s Prior Misconduct Review Committee, which concluded that Doe had withheld pertinent information and gave false or incomplete information to the business school. Dean Hess of the medical school, without inviting further response from Doe, expelled him from the medical school. Doe accused the University of violating both the Due Process Clause of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972.The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court found that the record did not support an inference of sex discrimination. The court also found that the University’s delay in launching an investigation into Doe’s complaint that Roe hit him on occasion did not contribute to the ultimate decision, and it was justified by the fact that Doe elected not to pursue this charge against Roe.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that Doe’s constitutional argument was stronger. The court held that Doe had a legitimate claim of entitlement to remain a student unless he transgressed a norm, which is a property interest in constitutional lingo and requires some kind of hearing. The court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the district court. If Doe elects to continue with the suit, his true name must be disclosed to the public, and the district court must decide what remedy is appropriate for Dean Hess’s failure to allow Doe an opportunity to present his position before expelling him. If Doe elects not to reveal his name, the complaint must be dismissed. View "Doe v. Trustees of Indiana University" on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs, including former members of the Montana Board of Regents, faculty organizations, student groups, and individual students, challenged the constitutionality of three bills passed by the Montana Legislature in 2021. The bills in question were HB 349, which regulated student organizations and speech on campus; HB 112, known as the "Save Women's Sports Act," which required sports teams to be designated as male, female, or coed based on biological sex; and § 2 of SB 319, which revised campaign finance laws and regulated the funding of certain student organizations. The plaintiffs argued that these bills infringed on the constitutional authority of the Board of Regents to supervise, coordinate, manage, and control the Montana University System.The District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, Gallatin County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, declaring HB 349, HB 112, and § 2 of SB 319 unconstitutional. The court also denied the plaintiffs' request for attorney fees. Both parties appealed this order.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court's decision. The court found that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims and that the challenged bills were unconstitutional. The court also upheld the District Court's denial of the plaintiffs' request for attorney fees, as the justices could not reach a majority opinion on this issue. View "Barrett v. State" on Justia Law

In 2020, Luke Hogan, a graduate student at Southern Methodist University (SMU), found his final semester disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Like many institutions, SMU shifted to online classes in response to government lockdown orders. Hogan, feeling cheated out of the in-person educational experience he had paid for, sued SMU for breach of contract. He sought a refund of his tuition and fees, arguing that the shift to online learning constituted a breach of SMU's promise of in-person education.The federal district court sided with SMU, and Hogan appealed. The Fifth Circuit then certified a question to the Supreme Court of Texas: Does the application of the Pandemic Liability Protection Act (PLPA) to Hogan’s breach-of-contract claim violate the retroactivity clause in article I, section 16 of the Texas Constitution? The PLPA, enacted in 2021, protects schools from monetary liability for altering their activities in response to the pandemic.The Supreme Court of Texas held that the application of the PLPA to Hogan's claim does not violate the Texas Constitution's prohibition on retroactive laws. The court reasoned that Hogan did not have a settled expectation of recovering damages from SMU under these circumstances. The court noted that the common law has traditionally excused a party from performing a contract when performance is rendered impossible by an act of God or government. The court also pointed out that Hogan voluntarily accepted SMU's offer to complete his degree online without a corresponding offer of tuition refunds or reduced fees. Therefore, any right of recovery that might have existed for Hogan was speculative and untested prior to the PLPA's enactment. The court concluded that the PLPA, enacted to resolve legal uncertainty created by the pandemic, did not upset Hogan's settled expectations and thus did not violate the constitutional prohibition on retroactive laws. View "HOGAN v. SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY" on Justia Law