Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

A transgender girl, D.P., and her mother challenged a new policy by the Mukwonago Area School District that required D.P. to use the boys’ bathroom or a gender-neutral alternative. They argued that the policy violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. They filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the policy's enforcement during litigation, citing the precedent set by Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 Board of Education.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the temporary restraining order and, shortly after, converted it to a preliminary injunction without holding a hearing. The judge found that the case was controlled by the Whitaker precedent and concluded that D.P. was likely to succeed on the merits of her claims. The school district appealed, arguing that the judge erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing and urging the court to overrule Whitaker and a related case, A.C. v. Metropolitan School District of Martinsville.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that an evidentiary hearing is not always required before issuing a preliminary injunction, especially when the opponent does not request one or identify material factual disputes. The court also declined to revisit or overrule Whitaker and Martinsville, reaffirming that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the preliminary injunction based on binding circuit precedent. The court concluded that the slight differences in D.P.'s case did not warrant a different outcome. View "Doe v Mukwonago Area School District" on Justia Law

A.J.T., a teenage girl with a rare form of epilepsy, moved to Minnesota in 2015. Her new school district, Osseo Area Public Schools, denied her parents' requests to include evening instruction in her Individualized Educational Program (IEP), despite her inability to attend school before noon due to frequent morning seizures. Consequently, A.J.T. received only 4.25 hours of instruction daily, compared to the typical 6.5-hour school day for nondisabled students. After further cuts to her school day were proposed, her parents filed an IDEA complaint, alleging that the refusal to provide afterhours instruction denied A.J.T. a free appropriate public education.An Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of A.J.T., finding that the school district violated the IDEA and ordered compensatory education and evening instruction. The Federal District Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. However, when A.J.T. and her parents sued under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, the District Court granted summary judgment for the school, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, stating that a plaintiff must prove bad faith or gross misjudgment by school officials to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of bad faith or gross misjudgment. Instead, they are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts. The Court vacated the Eighth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279" on Justia Law

Ashley Hushen and Alexandra Weary, along with their mothers, reported allegations of sexual harassment by a classmate, Benjamin Gonzales, to their high school administrators. The school conducted a Title IX investigation, resulting in Benjamin's three-day suspension and subsequent juvenile charges for unlawful sexual contact. Benjamin was acquitted of all charges, and the school reopened the investigation, ultimately concluding that Benjamin had not violated school policies. The students involved felt traumatized by the process, and by the time the proceedings concluded, they had graduated.Benjamin later sued Ashley, Alexandra, and their mothers for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on statements made during the Title IX investigations. The defendants filed a special motion to dismiss under Colorado's anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that their statements were absolutely privileged as they were made during a quasi-judicial proceeding. Both the trial court and the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the Title IX proceedings were not quasi-judicial due to procedural shortcomings, allowing Benjamin's lawsuit to proceed.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and clarified that the determination of whether a proceeding is quasi-judicial is separate from whether it offers sufficient due process. The court held that a proceeding is quasi-judicial if it involves determining the interests, rights, or duties of specific individuals and applying current law or policy to past or present facts. The court concluded that the Title IX investigation met these criteria and was therefore quasi-judicial. Consequently, the statements made during the investigation were protected by absolute privilege, and the lawsuit against Ashley, Alexandra, and their mothers could not proceed. The court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Hushen v. Gonzales" on Justia Law

E.R., the appellant, filed a complaint against the Beaufort County School District, alleging that the district failed to respond appropriately to her reports of sexual abuse and harassment while she was a student. E.R. claimed she was sexually assaulted by three male students and subsequently bullied and harassed by other students. Despite reporting these incidents to school officials, she alleged that no appropriate action was taken.The case was initially filed in South Carolina state court, asserting claims under Title IX and state law for negligence and gross negligence. The school district removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss it, arguing that the claims were untimely under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), which has a two-year statute of limitations. The district court agreed, applying the SCTCA's statute of limitations to both the Title IX and state law claims, and dismissed the case as it was filed more than two years after E.R. turned 18.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the appropriate statute of limitations for Title IX claims is the state's general personal injury statute of limitations, not the SCTCA's two-year period. The court reasoned that Title IX claims should borrow the statute of limitations from the most analogous state law cause of action, which in this case is the general personal injury statute. Since South Carolina's general personal injury statute of limitations is three years, E.R.'s claims were timely.The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of E.R.'s complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "E.R. v. Beaufort County School District" on Justia Law

R.M.A., a transgender student who transitioned from female to male, attended public school in the Blue Springs R-IV School District. R.M.A. requested to use male-designated restrooms and locker rooms during the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years, but the School District denied the request. R.M.A. filed a charge of discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, alleging public accommodation discrimination based on sex. After receiving a notice of right to sue, R.M.A. filed a petition against the School District, claiming sex discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA).The Circuit Court of Jackson County dismissed R.M.A.'s petition, stating that the public accommodation protection in section 213.065 does not cover claims based on gender identity. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed this decision in R.M.A. I, finding that R.M.A. had pleaded sufficient facts to establish a claim of sex discrimination and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, R.M.A. proceeded to trial, and the jury found the School District liable for sex discrimination, awarding R.M.A. compensatory and punitive damages.The School District filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, alternatively, a motion for a new trial, arguing that R.M.A. failed to make a submissible case for sex discrimination. The circuit court sustained the JNOV motion, finding that the evidence showed R.M.A. was excluded from male facilities due to female genitalia, not male sex. R.M.A. appealed.The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that R.M.A. did not present sufficient evidence that the School District's denial was based on R.M.A.'s male sex. The court concluded that the term "sex" in section 213.065 refers to biological sex, and the evidence indicated the School District's decision was based on R.M.A.'s female genitalia. Consequently, the court upheld the JNOV and denied R.M.A.'s motion for attorney fees. View "R.M.A. vs. Blue Springs R-IV School District" on Justia Law

The case involves Jovan Vavic, a former head coach of the men's and women's water polo teams at the University of Southern California (USC), who was implicated in the "Varsity Blues" college admissions scandal. Vavic was accused of facilitating the admission of students as fake athletic recruits in exchange for payments from Rick Singer, a college consultant orchestrating the scheme. The payments were allegedly made to benefit Vavic's water polo program and his sons' private school tuition.In the lower court, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts presided over the case. A jury convicted Vavic on three counts: conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and honest services mail and wire fraud, conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery, and wire fraud and honest services wire fraud. However, the district court granted Vavic a new trial, concluding that certain statements made by the government during its rebuttal closing amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. The court found that the government's statements misrepresented the law and facts, particularly regarding the payments to USC and the alleged $100,000 bribe for Agustina Huneeus's recruitment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's order for a new trial on the honest services fraud charge (Count Sixteen) due to a Yates error, as it was impossible to determine if the jury's verdict rested on an invalid legal theory following the decision in United States v. Abdelaziz. However, the appellate court reversed the new trial order for the federal programs bribery conspiracy charge (Count Three), concluding that the government's statements did not constitute plain error and that there was no prejudicial variance or Napue error. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "US v. Vavic" on Justia Law

A group of parents sued their local public school district and the State of Michigan, alleging that their children were denied essential special-education services. The parents claimed that the school district failed to provide promised services, such as full-time aides and speech therapy, and that the State failed to supervise the district adequately. The parents sought damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, and injunctive relief under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), ADA, and Rehabilitation Act.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied the State's motion to dismiss, holding that the ADA abrogated the State's sovereign immunity under the Fourteenth Amendment. The State then filed an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the parents failed to state a claim against the State under Title II of the ADA. The court explained that Title II allows lawsuits against a public entity for its own actions, not for the actions of another government entity. In this case, the school district, not the State, was responsible for the alleged denial of services. The court also noted that the State had already taken corrective actions against the school district and that the parents' claims of the State's failure to supervise were too conclusory to proceed. Therefore, the State was entitled to sovereign immunity, and the parents' ADA claim against the State was dismissed. View "Y.A. v. Hamtramck Public Schools" on Justia Law

The case involves the Temecula Valley Educators Association and individual students, teachers, and parents from the Temecula Valley Unified School District (collectively, Plaintiffs) who sued the District and five members of the District’s school board (collectively, Defendants). Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the implementation of “Resolution No. 2022–23/21” (the Resolution), which prohibits the use of Critical Race Theory (CRT) or similar frameworks in teaching topics related to race. The Resolution lists specific elements and doctrines of CRT that are banned. Plaintiffs argued that the Resolution is unconstitutionally vague and sought a preliminary injunction to halt its enforcement.The Superior Court of Riverside County denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the Resolution was sufficiently clear and that Plaintiffs did not show a likelihood of success on the merits. The court also concluded that the balance of harms favored denying the injunction, as enjoining a government action would cause irreparable injury.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The appellate court found that the Resolution is unconstitutionally vague because it employs ambiguous language, lacks definitions, is unclear in scope, and contains no enforcement guidelines. The court noted that the Resolution’s language leaves teachers uncertain about what is prohibited, leading to self-censorship and fear of arbitrary enforcement. The court also found that the trial court abused its discretion by not considering the significant harm Plaintiffs would face without an injunction and by incorrectly concluding that the Resolution did not violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order denying the preliminary injunction as to the Resolution and remanded for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. The court dismissed the appeal related to the Board’s “Policy 5020.01” as moot, given that the relevant portions of the Policy had been rescinded following changes in the law. View "Mae M. v. Komrosky" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case are parents of children with special needs attending public schools in Fairfax County, Virginia. They allege that the transition to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic constituted an unconstitutional "taking" of their children's Fifth Amendment property interest in public education. The plaintiffs argue that Virginia law establishes a fundamental right to public education, which they claim is a protected property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and, by extension, should be considered private property under the Takings Clause.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court reasoned that while the right to public education in Virginia may be a protected property interest under the Due Process Clause, it does not necessarily qualify as private property under the Takings Clause. The court noted that federal courts have long interpreted property interests protected by the Takings Clause as narrower than those protected by the Due Process Clause. The district court concluded that the right to public education is subject to regulation and revision by the Virginia government and cannot be bought or sold, distinguishing it from private property.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's judgment. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the plaintiffs' children may have a property interest in public education under the Due Process Clause but held that this does not extend to the Takings Clause. The court emphasized that the Takings Clause applies only to private property and that public education, being subject to government regulation and not possessing the characteristics of private property, does not qualify. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim for compensation under the Takings Clause. View "Chollet v. Brabrand" on Justia Law

Holly Lawson, a guidance counselor at Franklin County High School, alleged that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated by her coworkers, Kayla Creely and Lori Franke, and by School Superintendent Mark Kopp, along with the Franklin County, Kentucky Board of Education. Lawson claimed that Creely and Franke searched her bag without her consent, discovering a firearm, and that Kopp unlawfully detained and searched her in connection with this incident.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that Creely and Franke were acting under color of state law but were entitled to qualified immunity. It also determined that Kopp's actions constituted a lawful investigative stop under Terry v. Ohio and that Lawson consented to the search of her bag.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court concluded that Creely and Franke did not act under color of state law because their actions were not authorized by any school policy or state authority. The court also agreed that Kopp's interaction with Lawson was a lawful investigative stop supported by reasonable suspicion and that Lawson voluntarily searched her own bag, negating any Fourth Amendment violation. Consequently, the court found no basis for municipal liability under Monell against the Board. View "Lawson v. Creely" on Justia Law