Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted Jessica Marie Purcell's action in quo warranto seeking a determination that Clay Johnson be removed from the Chariho Regional School Committee and ordering the Town Council of the Town of Richmond to appoint Purcell to the School Committee and denied Johnson's action in quo warranto seeking a determination that he rightfully retain his membership on the School Committee, holding that Purcell was entitled to relief.On January 19, 2023, the Town Council voted to appoint Johnson to the town's vacant seat on the School Committee to serve the remainder of Gary Ligouri's term following his resignation. Purcell brought this action seeking an order removing Johnson from the Committee and requiring the Council to appoint Purcell, as prescribed by the Town's Home Rule Charter. In response, the Town and Johnson filed an emergency quo warranto petition claiming right and title to the public office pursuant to the Chariho Act. See P.L. 1958, ch. 55, as amended by P.L. 1986, ch. 286. The Supreme Court denied and dismissed Johnson's petition and granted Purcell's petition, holding that Purcell was legally entitled to the office of Chariho Regional School Committee member. View "Purcell v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Under the 1976 Migrant Education Act (Ed. Code 54442)., the State Board of Education must adopt a master plan for services to migrant children, requiring “[t]he active involvement of parents, teachers, and community representatives in the local implementation of migrant education.” The Superintendent of Public Instruction implements the plan and must establish regional parent advisory councils (RPACs) to consult with local agencies in the planning, operation, and evaluation of migrant education programs. In 2019, the Superintendent adopted regulations concerning the formation and governance of RPACs.The trial court rejected arguments that the Superintendent acted outside his statutory authority, as section 54444.2 provides migrant parents the “sole authority” to “decide on the composition of the council,” that the regulations conflict with the statute by placing impermissible restrictions on migrant parents’ authority to elect RPAC members, that the necessity of the regulations to effectuate the Act’s purpose was not supported by substantial evidence, and that the adoption violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The court of appeal concluded that the Superintendent acted within his authority in adopting the challenged regulations but violated the APA’s notice requirements when he adopted a regulation prohibiting RPAC members’ use of alternates without adequate notice to the public. The necessity of the regulations is supported by substantial evidence. The regulations are valid except for the prohibition on alternates and portions of the regulations the trial court invalidated. View "Wendz v. Department of Education" on Justia Law

A disabled public school student was sexually assaulted by another student with known violent tendencies. Despite knowing of this attack, the victim’s teachers let both her and her aggressor wander the school unsupervised, and she was again assaulted by the very same student. The victim’s mother sued the school district under Title IX and various school officials under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. In her Section 1983 claim against the school officials, she alleged liability under the so-called “state-created danger” doctrine. The district court denied that motion and stayed proceedings on the Title IX claim pending this interlocutory appeal of the Section 1983 ruling.   The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the Section 1983 claim. The court explained that the Circuit has never adopted a state-created danger exception to the sweeping “no duty to protect” rule. And a never-established right cannot be a clearly established one. As for whether to adopt the state-created danger theory of constitutional liability moving forward, the court was reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process for two reasons: (1) the Supreme Court’s recent forceful pronouncements signaling unease with implied rights not deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition; and (2) the absence of rigorous panel briefing that grapples painstakingly with how such a cause of action would work in terms of its practical contours and application, vital details on which the court’s sister circuits disagree. Rather than break new ground, the court ruled instead on a narrower ground, one that follows the court’s unbroken precedent. View "Fisher v. Moore" on Justia Law

Michigan State University's “COVID directives,” included a requirement that all employees receive a vaccine by August 31, 2021, even those who worked remotely. The policy included religious and medical exemptions. Medical exemptions were limited to “CDC-recognized contraindications and for individuals with disabilities.” It did not provide an exemption based on immunity acquired from a COVID-19 infection. The plaintiffs all tested positive for COVID-10 and claimed that, based on their natural immunity, it was medically unnecessary for them to be vaccinated. They did not comply with the policy; one was terminated, one was placed on unpaid leave, and one received a religious exemption.Their suit claimed violations of their constitutional rights to bodily autonomy and to decline medical treatment, alleging that MSU cannot establish a compelling governmental interest in overriding those constitutional rights; the policy constitutes an unconstitutional condition on continued state employment; and the policy contradicts the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) statute, 21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. It is sufficient that MSU could rationally believe that requiring the vaccine for naturally immune individuals would further combat COVID-19 on its campus. The plaintiffs did not adequately explain how receiving a vaccine violates a fundamental right, which would invoke a higher level of scrutiny. The EUA is meant to ensure patients’ consent to the pharmaceutical they are receiving and does not mean that MSU cannot require vaccination as a term of employment. View "Norris v. Stanleys" on Justia Law

McKendree University, like other Illinois colleges, closed its campus and switched to remote instruction in March 2020 due to the risks of COVID-19. McKendree already ran an online degree program in addition to its on-campus degree program. McKendree did not refund its in-person students for any portion of their tuition or fees. The plaintiffs. enrolled in McKendree’s on-campus program at the time of the shutdown, sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.The Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of the suit, noting its recent precedent holding that certain evidence—including a university’s course catalogs, class registration system, and pre-pandemic practices—can suffice under Illinois law to allege the existence of an implied contract between a university and its students for in-person instruction and extracurricular activities. The complaint in this case is “enough—if barely—to state a claim at the pleading stage.” Under Illinois law, the relationship between students and universities is contractual and the parties’ obligations under the contract are “inferred from the facts and conduct of the parties, rather than from an oral or written agreement.” View "Delisle v. McKendree University" on Justia Law

Texas allows illegal aliens who satisfy residency requirements to pay that in-state, lower tuition. A Texas university student group of out-of-state students, the Young Conservatives of Texas Foundation (YCT), sued officials at the University of North Texas, arguing that Texas’ tuition scheme violated federal law. The district court agreed and barred the university from charging out-of-state tuition.   The Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment and vacated the injunction. The court reasoned that Section 1623(a), the statute expressly preempts state rules that grant illegal aliens benefits when U.S. citizens haven’t received the same. No matter what a state says, if a state did not make U.S. citizens eligible, illegal aliens cannot be eligible. Section 54.051(d)—the one and only section challenged here—does not grant those benefits. It does nothing more than set the tuition price for nonresident students, citizens or not. It takes no stance on whether illegal aliens are eligible for a cheaper price. Section 1623(a) has nothing to say about a rule like that. Therefore, Section 54.051(d) is not expressly preempted by Section 1623(a). The court ultimately held that because the district court awarded a permanent injunction by relying on its erroneous preemption analysis, it abused its discretion. View "Young Conservatives v. Smatresk" on Justia Law

Hess, a 17-year-old student, was required to participate in a ride-along with Hammond Officer Garcia. Her complaint describes a day-long sequence of inappropriate comments and questions punctuated by unwelcome physical sexual contact. Garcia allegedly rubbed his arm against her breast, repeatedly placed his hand on Hess’s thigh, put his hand on her buttocks, stated that Hess wanted to become a prostitute, and, while in a secluded location, asked another officer if he wanted to have sex with Hess. After Hess’s ride along, another female classmate participated in the course-required ride with Garcia. When the classmate told Hess that Garcia had acted inappropriately, the girls reported their experiences.Hess sued Garcia and Chief Doughty in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claim against Doughty for lack of allegations of the requisite level of involvement in the alleged violations. The court reversed the dismissal of the claim against Garcia. It is well established that sexual assault by a government official acting under the color of law can violate the Equal Protection Clause as sex discrimination, the Fourth Amendment right “of the people to be secure in their persons,” and the right to bodily integrity protected by the Due Process Clause. The court rejected arguments that the alleged conduct was simply “boorish” and not serious enough to implicate the Constitution. Sexual assault is an intentional act that never serves a legitimate governmental purpose. View "Hess v. Garcia" on Justia Law

After sustaining a knee injury during a mandatory eighth-grade physical education class’s touch football unit, Plaintiff sued, among others, defendants Burbank Unified School District (the District) and his physical education teacher. A jury returned verdicts in Plaintiff’s favor against Defendants, finding that the District breached a mandatory duty under the Education Code, the teacher was negligent, and Plaintiff suffered resulting harm. Defendants appealed from the judgment, contending: there was insufficient evidence that the District’s breach of a mandatory duty proximately caused Plaintiff’s injury; the special verdict form was fatally defective because it failed to specify whether the District’s breach of a mandatory duty or the teacher’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries; the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the primary assumption of risk doctrine; and the court erred by not allowing the jury to apportion fault to the student who ran into Plaintiff (the Student), thus precluding Defendants from reducing liability for noneconomic damages.   The Second Appellate District reversed and remanded for the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the District and to hold a new trial limited to the issue of apportionment of fault between the teacher and student. The court explained that the Student’s act of intentionally running into Plaintiff was a substantial causative factor in Plaintiff’s injury and the teacher, therefore, should have been entitled to seek allocation of fault pursuant to Civil Code section 1431.2.11 Because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on comparative fault principles, the court remanded for retrial on the apportionment of fault. View "Nigel B. v. Burbank Unified Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, Plaintiff challenged the district court’s award of summary judgment to defendant Liberty University, Inc. (“Liberty”) on Palmer’s claim of age discrimination, pursued under provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the “ADEA”)  (the “Statutory Ruling”). On the other hand, Liberty, by cross-appeal, challenged an earlier award of summary judgment that was made to Plaintiff, in which the court ruled that Plaintiff was not a “minister” for purposes of the First Amendment’s so-called “ministerial exception” (the “Constitutional Ruling”).   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Statutory Ruling, dismissed Liberty’s cross-appeal, and vacated the Constitutional Ruling. The court explained that it agreed with the district court that Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence of age-based discrimination to overcome Liberty’s summary judgment motion on that issue. Accordingly, the court was satisfied to affirm the Statutory Ruling in favor of Liberty. Moreover, in light of that disposition — and pursuant to the constitutional avoidance doctrine — the court refrained from resolving whether Plaintiff was a minister for purposes of the First Amendment’s ministerial exception. As a result, the court wrote it was obliged to dismiss Liberty’s cross-appeal and vacate the Constitutional Ruling. View "Eva Palmer v. Liberty University, Incorporated" on Justia Law

The Higher Education Act governs federal financial aid, 20 U.S.C. 1070(a), and authorizes the Secretary of Education to cancel or reduce loans held by some public servants and borrowers who have died, become permanently and totally disabled, are bankrupt, or whose schools falsely certify them, close down, or fail to pay lenders. Under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act (HEROES Act), the Secretary “may waive or modify" any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the loan programs as the Secretary deems "necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.” As the COVID–19 pandemic was ending, the Secretary invoked the HEROES Act to issue “waivers and modifications” reducing or eliminating most borrowers' federal student debt. States challenged the plan. The Eighth Circuit issued a nationwide preliminary injunction.The Supreme Court found that the plan exceeded the Secretary’s authority, first holding that at least Missouri had standing. The plan would cost the state's nonprofit government corporation about $44 million a year in fees.The HEROES Act allows the Secretary to “waive or modify” existing statutory or regulatory provisions but does not allow the Secretary to rewrite the Education Act to the extent of canceling $430 billion of student loan principal. The Secretary may make modest adjustments to existing provisions, not transform them. The Act includes narrowly-delineated situations that qualify a borrower for loan discharge; the Secretary has extended such discharge to nearly every borrower. The plan constitutes “effectively" a "whole new regime.” The question is not whether something should be done; it is who has the authority to do it. The basic and consequential tradeoffs inherent in mass debt cancellation are ones that Congress would likely have intended for itself. View "Biden v. Nebraska" on Justia Law