Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

A field consultant for a public teachers’ union brought a lawsuit after a school board held a closed executive session during a grievance hearing involving a teacher’s transfer and removal of extracurricular duties. The board’s attorney presented the school district’s legal position and rationale in an open meeting before the board entered executive session to receive additional legal advice. The board later voted in public to deny the grievance, and the plaintiff, who was not the aggrieved teacher, claimed the executive session violated North Dakota’s open meetings laws. She sought disclosure of the executive session recording as a remedy. The District Court of Grand Forks County granted summary judgment to the school district, finding no waiver of the right to enter executive session, that the requirements for the attorney consultation exemption were met, and that the plaintiff’s due process rights were not violated by her lack of access to the executive session transcript. The court declined to review the executive session recording, relying instead on declarations from board representatives and the parties’ stipulation that no material facts were in dispute. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that the school board did not waive its right to an executive session by publicly stating its legal position and that the statutory requirements for entering executive session were satisfied. The court also found no due process violation from not providing the plaintiff access to the transcript. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by not conducting an in camera review of the executive session recording before granting summary judgment. The judgment of dismissal and the award of costs to the school district were reversed, and the case was remanded for the district court to review the recording and proceed accordingly. View "Haskell v. Grand Forks Public Schools" on Justia Law

In 1965, individuals filed a class action lawsuit against the public schools in St. Mary Parish, Louisiana, seeking to end segregation and secure injunctive relief. The district court granted an injunction requiring desegregation and oversight, with subsequent orders and modifications over the years as the parties and courts responded to compliance issues and changes in the law. After a period of inactivity, new representatives and counsel stepped in around 2018–2019, seeking to further modify the original injunction. The School Board responded by filing motions challenging the procedural propriety of the new plaintiffs, the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and the ongoing validity of the injunction.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana allowed the substitution of new plaintiffs, denied the Board’s motions to dismiss, and recertified the class, despite acknowledging factors that weighed against doing so. The Board did not appeal immediately but later renewed its objections, moving to dissolve the decades-old injunction and to strike or dismiss the new plaintiffs’ motions for further relief. The district court denied the Board’s motions to dismiss and to strike, and clarified that the Board could not present certain arguments under Rule 60(b)(5) at an upcoming hearing. The Board appealed these rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether it had appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), which allows interlocutory appeals of orders granting, continuing, modifying, or refusing to dissolve injunctions. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court’s orders did not have the practical effect of continuing, modifying, or refusing to dissolve the injunction, but merely maintained the status quo pending further proceedings. As such, the appellate court determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal and dismissed it for want of appellate jurisdiction. View "Navy v. Sch Bd of St. Mary Prsh" on Justia Law

Several organizations and individuals petitioned to prevent the Idaho State Tax Commission from implementing a newly enacted parental choice tax credit. This tax credit, established in 2025, provides refundable credits to parents, guardians, and foster parents for certain private educational expenses, including private school tuition and related services, for dependent students not enrolled in public schools. The law caps total annual credits and includes prioritization based on income and previous participation. The petitioners, including advocacy groups, a school district, and parents, argued that the statute creates a separate, non-public education system funded by public resources, allegedly violating the Idaho Constitution’s mandate for a single, general, uniform, and thorough system of public schools. They also claimed the statute failed the “public purpose doctrine,” asserting it primarily benefits private rather than public interests.Before the Idaho Supreme Court, the petitioners sought a writ of prohibition, which would prevent the Tax Commission from carrying out the law. The respondents, including the State and the Idaho Legislature, contested the petitioners’ standing and the merits of the constitutional claims. The Supreme Court determined that the petitioners lacked traditional standing but, given the urgency and importance of the constitutional question and the absence of another suitable challenger, relaxed standing requirements to address the merits.The Supreme Court of Idaho denied the petition. It held that Article IX, section 1 of the Idaho Constitution does not restrict the legislature from enacting educational measures beyond the required public school system, so long as the public system remains intact and constitutionally sufficient. The Court also found that the tax credit serves a legitimate public purpose—supporting parental choice in education—even if private entities benefit. The petition was dismissed, and the Tax Commission was awarded attorney fees and costs. View "Committee to Protect and Preserve v. State" on Justia Law

Two children were placed in the temporary custody of the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) by the Family Court in 2018. The Family Court determined that Newport and Cumberland were responsible municipalities for the children’s education, as they were the residences of the custodial parents. DCYF placed the children in residential treatment facilities where they received general education services, but not special education services.DCYF requested orders from the Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education that Newport and Cumberland reimburse DCYF for education costs at the per-pupil special-education rate. The commissioner agreed and ordered the municipalities to pay at that rate. Both municipalities appealed to the Council on Elementary and Secondary Education, which denied their appeals. The municipalities then appealed to the Rhode Island Superior Court under the Administrative Procedures Act. The Superior Court consolidated the cases and found that the statute required the municipalities to pay their share of educational costs, but not at the special-education rate unless special education services were provided. The trial justice also held that, even after statutory amendments removed references to general education, the municipalities were still responsible for the per-pupil general-education rate for children not receiving special education.On review, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island considered whether the municipalities were obligated to pay the general-education rate after the statutory reference to general education was removed. The Court held that the plain language of the statute only requires reimbursement for special education costs and does not obligate municipalities to pay for general education where no special education services are provided. The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Superior Court. View "Newport School Committee v. Rhode Island Department of Education" on Justia Law

Three parents of students in Philadelphia challenged the School District’s 2022 Admissions Policy for four selective public high schools. Prior to 2022, admissions decisions were made by individual schools using academic criteria, attendance, and sometimes additional requirements such as interviews and writing samples. After a report identified geographic disparities in school representation, and following the School District’s public commitments to anti-racism and equity, a new centralized policy was adopted. This policy introduced revised academic standards, eliminated certain prior requirements, and implemented a zip code preference favoring applicants from six areas with high Black and Hispanic populations. Qualified applicants from these zip codes received automatic admission, while others had to enter a lottery for remaining seats.The parents, whose children lived outside the preferred zip codes and met the new criteria but were not admitted to their first-choice schools, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. They alleged violations of Title VI, the Equal Protection Clause, and related state constitutional provisions, arguing that the new process was racially discriminatory. The District Court granted summary judgment for the School District, finding that no reasonable factfinder could conclude the policy had a racially discriminatory purpose or impact. The court applied rational basis review, holding the policy was rationally related to legitimate interests such as increasing access for underrepresented geographic areas.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the parents, a reasonable factfinder could conclude the Admissions Policy had both discriminatory purpose and impact. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings, directing that strict scrutiny must be applied if a discriminatory purpose and impact are found. View "Sargent v. School District of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

A student was enrolled in a respiratory therapy program at a community college from 2017 to 2022. During her final year, supervisors at several hospitals where she completed clinical rotations reported concerns about her clinical performance, including patient safety issues and unprofessional conduct. After a series of incidents, she was suspended and ultimately dismissed from the program for violating the student code of conduct, specifically for conduct that endangered patient safety. The student argued that her difficulties were due to academic deficiencies rather than misconduct and also claimed she experienced discrimination based on her race and national origin.After her initial dismissal, the student sought review in the Somerset County Superior Court, which found the administrative record insufficient and remanded the matter for a new hearing. The college’s disciplinary committee held a second hearing, reviewed evidence from both the student and the administration, and again upheld her dismissal, explicitly finding no evidence of discrimination or bias. The student then brought a three-count action in the Superior Court: (1) an administrative appeal of her dismissal under Rule 80B, (2) a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of procedural due process, and (3) a claim of unlawful educational discrimination under Maine law.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the college’s decision to dismiss the student was not arbitrary or capricious and that the disciplinary process afforded her meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Court affirmed dismissal of the § 1983 and discrimination claims as duplicative of the administrative appeal, finding that her grievances were properly addressed through Rule 80B review, and that there was no evidence of discrimination or due process violations. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Hogan v. Kennebec Valley Community College" on Justia Law

An 11-year-old student, Therese, died by suicide at her father's home during her school’s winter break. Her parents brought claims against the school district, alleging negligent hiring, supervision, and training of staff, failure to protect Therese from bullying, and inadequate response to her expressions of suicidal ideation. They argued the district failed to fulfill its duty to supervise students and to inform them of Therese’s condition. The parents also pursued a survival claim for Therese’s pre-death suffering, alleging harm occurred on campus due to the district’s negligence.The Superior Court of Solano County denied the school district’s motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact as to whether the district exercised reasonable care and whether Therese suffered injury on campus due to the district’s negligence. The court relied on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School District, determining that statutory immunity under Education Code section 44808 did not apply because there were factual questions about on-campus harm and failure to exercise reasonable care.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case on a petition for writ of mandate. The appellate court held that under section 44808, the district is immune from liability for harms resulting from Therese’s off-campus suicide, as she was not under the district’s supervision at the time. However, the court determined that this immunity does not extend to the survival claim, which concerns alleged on-campus harm while Therese was under the district’s supervision. The appellate court ordered the trial court to grant summary adjudication in favor of the district on the wrongful death and related claims but allowed the survival claim to proceed. View "Vallejo City Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The case involved a dispute between a public school district and several charter schools, along with a resident, regarding the mode of free transportation provided to charter school students. Previously, the district had provided school bus transportation to all students, including those attending charter schools within ten miles of the district. However, to reduce costs, the district switched to giving charter school students free passes to use public buses operated by the county transit authority, a move that resulted in significant savings due to differences in state reimbursement. The charter schools continued to provide private transportation for younger students but not for older ones, who used the public transit passes.After the change, the charter schools and the resident sued in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, seeking a declaration that the district’s provision of public bus passes did not constitute “free transportation” as required by state law and an injunction to stop the practice. The trial court, after a non-jury trial, ruled in the district’s favor, holding that state statutes allowed school districts to use common carriers for student transportation and that the law did not require identical modes of transportation for charter and district students. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court initially reversed on a procedural issue but, after remand from the Supreme Court, ultimately affirmed the trial court, finding no violation of the relevant statutes.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether state law requires school districts to provide the same mode of free transportation to charter school students as to traditional public school students. The court held that the statute entitles charter school students to “free transportation” but does not require that the mode of transportation be identical to that provided to other public school students. The court affirmed the order of the Commonwealth Court, ruling that the district’s use of public bus passes for charter school students was permissible under the law. View "Bell v. Wilkinsburg SD" on Justia Law

A former assistant principal at a middle school in the Central Valley School District posted a Facebook comment about the Democratic National Convention that included epithets, slurs, and violent language. The post, though made on his private account and shared with Facebook friends, was seen by other school district employees and quickly forwarded to administrators. Within days, the assistant principal was placed on paid administrative leave, prohibited from contacting district staff or students, and ultimately transferred to a non-administrative teaching position. The school district’s investigation revealed additional concerns about derogatory comments he had made at work. The district offered him a voluntary transfer if he signed a release of claims, which he rejected, leading to further administrative proceedings and the final transfer decision.Previously, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington reviewed the case. The court initially denied summary judgment to individual administrators on qualified immunity, a decision affirmed by the Ninth Circuit on interlocutory appeal. After further discovery and cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment to the school district and the individual administrators. The court found the plaintiff had established a prima facie First Amendment retaliation claim but held that the district’s interests outweighed the plaintiff’s under the Pickering balancing test. Qualified immunity was also found to apply to the individual defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. It held that while the plaintiff’s Facebook post was private speech on a matter of public concern and he made a prima facie case for retaliation, the school district showed a reasonable prediction of disruption and its interest in maintaining a safe and inclusive environment outweighed the plaintiff’s First Amendment interests. The court also affirmed qualified immunity for the individual administrators. View "Thompson v. Central Valley School District No 365" on Justia Law

After a fatal school shooting occurred at a high school in Michigan, H.H., an eighth-grade student at a different school, was reported by several classmates to have made threatening comments about possessing or bringing a gun to campus. The school administration, in response to these reports and heightened safety concerns, questioned H.H. with assistance from law enforcement, searched his person, backpack, and locker, and ultimately found no firearm. Despite this, the administration determined that H.H. had violated the school district’s code of conduct and referred him for an expulsion hearing, which resulted in his expulsion for 180 days.Following the expulsion, H.H.’s parents filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the school district and various officials. They raised claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of H.H.’s Fourth Amendment rights (unlawful search and seizure), procedural and substantive due process, and also asserted state law tort claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims, finding no constitutional violations and determining that the defendants were immune from state law liability.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the search and seizure of H.H. were reasonable under the circumstances, given the nature of the reported threat and school safety concerns. It found that the procedures afforded to H.H. during the expulsion process satisfied due process requirements, and there was no evidence of bias or arbitrary conduct by the school board. The court also concluded that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, and that governmental immunity barred the state tort claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in full. View "Halasz v. Cass City Public Schools" on Justia Law