Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

A high school student, who is a transgender girl but was assigned male at birth, played on a varsity girls’ softball team in Minnesota under a 2016 state athletic bylaw permitting students to participate in sporting activities consistent with their gender identity. Female Athletes United (FAU), an organization advocating for women’s sports, sued Minnesota officials and local school boards, alleging that permitting the student’s participation violated the rights of its members under Title IX by denying them effective accommodation and equal treatment. FAU claimed its members suffered various harms, such as lost athletic opportunities and emotional distress, and sought a preliminary injunction to prohibit “male athletes” from competing against its members in girls’ sports involving contact or competitive skill.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota found that FAU had standing because one member’s team was scheduled to play against the transgender athlete’s team. However, the district court denied the preliminary injunction on two grounds: first, that FAU lacked a private right of action for its Title IX claims, because they were based on a disparate impact (rather than intentional discrimination) theory, and second, that FAU failed to satisfy the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that, under Title IX and controlling Supreme Court precedents, there is only a private right of action for claims of intentional discrimination, not for disparate impact. It found FAU’s claims were based on allegations of negative effects rather than intentional disparate treatment or deliberate indifference. The court concluded that FAU’s allegations did not support a claim of intentional discrimination. Thus, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, holding that FAU lacked a private right of action for its Title IX claims. View "Female Athletes United v. Keith Ellison" on Justia Law

Several educators, parents, students, and a nonprofit organization challenged two provisions of an Iowa law affecting public schools. The law restricts classroom instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation for students in kindergarten through sixth grade and requires school officials to notify parents if a student requests accommodations affirming their gender identity, such as using a different pronoun. The plaintiffs, asserting facial constitutional challenges, argued the provisions were overbroad and vague, infringing on First Amendment and due process rights.Previously, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa granted a preliminary injunction against these provisions. The district court found that the terms “program” and “promotion” in the instruction restriction were overly broad and infringed on protected speech, and determined that the parental notification law was impermissibly vague due to the undefined use of “accommodation.” The district court severed what it considered unconstitutional portions of the statutes and enjoined their enforcement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. It held that the statutes, when read with the canon of constitutional avoidance, could reasonably be interpreted in a way that avoided constitutional problems and that the statutory language was sufficiently clear. The appellate court found the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that unconstitutional applications of the laws substantially outweighed constitutional ones in their facial challenge. It further determined that the term “accommodation” was not unconstitutionally vague. The Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction and vacated that injunction as to all challenged provisions, remanding the case for further proceedings on the merits. View "Iowa Safe Schools v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs, including publishers, authors, educators, and a parent of a student, challenged provisions of an Iowa law (Senate File 496) requiring public school libraries to remove books containing “descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act.” The law also imposed penalties on educators who failed to comply. The plaintiffs argued that these provisions violated their First Amendment rights, both as to students’ access to information and as to the right of authors and publishers to communicate with their intended audience.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa initially granted a preliminary injunction, preventing enforcement of the challenged provisions. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail, holding that the unconstitutional applications of the law substantially outweighed constitutional ones. It declined to apply the standard set out in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, instead relying on the obscenity standard from Ginsberg v. State of New York and the “substantial and reasonable government interest” test from the plurality in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The Eighth Circuit held that the Hazelwood standard—whether the restrictions are “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns”—applies to school library curation. The court determined that the Iowa law’s book restrictions addressed legitimate pedagogical concerns and were neither amorphous nor unreasonable. Because the plaintiffs could not show a likelihood of success on the merits under the correct standard, the Eighth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings on the merits. View "Penguin Random House, LLC v. Robbins" on Justia Law

Two students alleged that an Arkansas law violates their First Amendment rights by prohibiting their teachers from providing classroom materials and instruction about Critical Race Theory (CRT). The district court concluded that the law likely violated the students' right to receive information and entered a preliminary injunction. Arkansas officials appealed, arguing that the Free Speech Clause does not allow students to compel the government to provide certain classroom materials or instruction in public schools.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted a preliminary injunction to the students but denied one to the teachers. The court determined that the teachers' speech was government speech, not their own, and thus any chill on their speech did not harm their rights. The court concluded that the students demonstrated that the law blocked their receipt of information previously provided before its enactment and that the Arkansas officials did not show a legitimate pedagogical reason for withholding teaching about CRT.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the Arkansas officials. The court held that the students conceded the classroom materials and instruction they sought to receive constituted government speech. Since the government's own speech is not restricted by the Free Speech Clause, the government is free to choose what to say and what not to say. The court concluded that the students could not show a likelihood of success on their claim and vacated the preliminary injunction. The court also declined to uphold the preliminary injunction based on the teachers' vagueness claim, as the teachers did not file a cross-appeal. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Walls v. Oliva" on Justia Law

F.B. and M.B. filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and their minor child, L.B., under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging that Our Lady of Lourdes Parish and School failed to comply with procedural standards and requirements mandated by the Act's implementing regulations. L.B. had ADHD and reduced vision, and her parents claimed that the school initially provided necessary accommodations but later failed to do so after a change in school administration. This led to L.B. receiving failing grades and eventually being expelled from the school.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the case, holding that Section 504 does not create a private right of action for claims based solely on an alleged failure to comply with procedural standards and requirements of the implementing regulations. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to bring their claims. The court found that the plaintiffs' alleged injury, L.B.'s expulsion, was not fairly traceable to the school's failure to comply with the procedural regulations of Section 504. Additionally, the court determined that the relief sought by the plaintiffs would not redress their alleged injury. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "F.B. v. Our Lady of Lourdes Parish and School" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the YMCA in plaintiff's public accommodation suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. Plaintiff argued that the YMCA's blanket policy of requiring a child's individualized education program (IEP) before admitting the child to its summer camp programs was discriminatory because the IEP in effect serves to screen out children with disabilities from the YMCA summer camp programs. The district court correctly determined that the YMCA took no adverse action against plaintiff's child. Assuming that plaintiff's request to provide less information than the entire IEP was a request for an accommodation, plaintiff failed to establish that the YMCA failed to unreasonably accommodate the child where the YMCA offered to modify the policy as long as it obtained the information it deemed necessary to accommodate the child. View "Koester v. Young Men's Christian Assoc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of her minor son J.M., filed suit against the School District, alleging unlawful use of isolation and physical restraints, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12182; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.; and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), RSMo 213.010 et seq. The district court dismissed the federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the MHRA claim. In this case, plaintiff did not file an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., due process complaint, request a due process hearing, or engage in the exhaustion procedures under the IDEA. The court concluded that because the complaint sought relief available under the IDEA, denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE), the claims were subject to exhaustion, barring an applicable exception. The court rejected plaintiff's futility and inadequate remedy arguments and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. View "J.M. v. Francis Howell School District" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was removed from the Associate Degree Nursing Program for behavior unbecoming of the profession and transgression of professional boundaries after CLC received student complaints about plaintiff's posts on his Facebook page. Plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of his First Amendment rights and due process. After some defendants were dismissed, the district court granted summary judgment to the remaining defendants. The court concluded that, given the strong state interest in regulating health professions, teaching and enforcing viewpoint-neutral professional codes of ethics are a legitimate part of a professional school’s curriculum that do not, at least on their face, run afoul of the First Amendment; plaintiff made no allegation, and presented no evidence, that defendants’ reliance on the Nurses Association Code of Ethics was a pretext for viewpoint, or any other kind of discrimination; college administrators and educators in a professional school have discretion to require compliance with recognized standards of the profession, both on and off campus, so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns; plaintiff's contention, that his offensive Facebook posts were unrelated to any course assignment or requirements, is factually flawed where the posts were directed at classmates, involved their conduct in the Nursing Program, and included a physical threat related to their medical studies; plaintiff's statements had a direct impact on the students' educational experience and had the potential to impact patient care; and the First Amendment did not bar educator Frisch from making the determination that plaintiff was unable to meet the professional demands of being a nurse. The court rejected plaintiff's due process and remaining claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Keefe v. Adams" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's order granting the District's motion to approve the closure of Wilmot Elementary School and to modify the gifted and talented (GT) requirements for the District. In 1988, plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging race discrimination and other claims. The parties negotiated a settlement and, in 1991, the district court entered a Consent Order disposing of issues remaining in the complaint. In this case, the district court approved closure of Wilmot and modification of the GT program as the proper modification of the Consent Order due to the significant changed circumstances. The court concluded that such modification is suitably tailored where the modifications sought by the school district in light of the (1) demographic changes, (2) decrease in enrollment, (3) cost savings, and (4) educational considerations are in line with the initial Consent Order. Accordingly, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the District's motion to approve closure of Wilmot and to modify the GT requirements. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Mays v. Hamburg Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

After the school districts sought termination of the Garland County School Desegregation Case Comprehensive Settlement Agreement and relief from the district court’s 1992 order enforcing it, the district court denied the school districts' Rule 60(b)(5) motion. The district court rejected the school districts' argument that the Agreement is no longer just or equitable to give the 1992 order or the Agreement prospective application in light of the repeal of the Arkansas School Choice Act of 1989 (School Choice Act), Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-206 (repealed 2013). The court concluded that the school districts have presented no evidence that they have either fully complied or that there have been changed circumstances in those other areas of the Agreement. Therefore, termination of the entire Agreement would be supported by nothing more than the notion that it is no longer convenient to live with. The court affirmed the judgment. View "W.T. Davis v. Cutter Morning Star Sch." on Justia Law