Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a group of plaintiffs who filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Independent School District 194 and its superintendent. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated their First Amendment rights by discriminating against their political viewpoints. The controversy arose when the school district allowed the display of Black Lives Matter (BLM) posters in classrooms but rejected requests to display "All Lives Matter" and "Blue Lives Matter" posters and shirts. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' First Amendment claims and denied the unnamed plaintiffs' motion to proceed under pseudonyms.The district court ruled that the unnamed plaintiffs had not sufficiently established a threat of a hostile public reaction to their lawsuit that would warrant anonymity. It also concluded that the BLM posters constituted government speech that is not subject to scrutiny under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. The plaintiffs appealed both orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to proceed under pseudonyms, finding that the unnamed plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence of a compelling fear of retaliation. However, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, concluding that the plaintiffs had pleaded sufficient facts to allow a court to draw the plausible inference that the BLM posters are expressions of private persons, not government speech. The court also found that the district had engaged in viewpoint discrimination by allowing the display of BLM posters but rejecting "All Lives Matter" and "Blue Lives Matter" posters and shirts. View "Cajune v. Independent School District 194" on Justia Law

The Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, on behalf of the state, sought a writ of mandamus and declaratory relief against the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board and its members. The state argued that the board's contract with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, a religious charter school, violated state and federal law and was unconstitutional. The state contended that the contract violated the Oklahoma Constitution, which mandates that all charter schools be nonsectarian in their programs, admission policies, and other operations. The state also argued that the contract violated the federal Establishment Clause, which prohibits the state from using public money for the establishment of a religious institution.The Charter School Board had approved St. Isidore's application to become an Oklahoma virtual charter school and later approved its contract for sponsorship. The contract recognized certain rights, exemptions, or entitlements applicable to St. Isidore as a religious organization under state and federal law. The contract also stated that St. Isidore had the right to freely exercise its religious beliefs and practices consistent with its religious protections.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma assumed original jurisdiction over the case. The court found that the contract violated the Oklahoma Constitution, the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, and the federal Establishment Clause. The court held that St. Isidore, as a public charter school, was a governmental entity and a state actor. The court also held that the contract violated the Establishment Clause because it allowed for the use of state funds for the benefit and support of the Catholic church and required students to participate in religious curriculum and activities. The court granted the extraordinary and declaratory relief sought by the state and directed the Charter School Board to rescind its contract with St. Isidore. View "DRUMMOND v. OKLAHOMA STATEWIDE VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD" on Justia Law

The case involves Benjamin Stanley, who was employed by Western Michigan University (WMU) for about a month before his employment was terminated. Stanley, who has severe ADHD, claimed that WMU and certain supervisors discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He also brought a claim under Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA), as well as a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed Stanley’s federal claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and dismissed his state-law claims for failure to comply with the Michigan Court of Claims Act’s notification statute.The district court's dismissal of Stanley's claims was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Stanley’s federal claims and the denial of Stanley’s motion for leave to amend his complaint. However, the court vacated the judgment in part and remanded to the district court to dismiss Stanley’s federal and state-law claims without prejudice. The court found that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Stanley’s ADA claims because the defendants were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and Stanley lacked standing to request injunctive relief from the individual defendants. The court also found that the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide Stanley’s state-law claims because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over any federal issues. View "Stanley v. Western Michigan University" on Justia Law

The case involves Jennifer Sugg, a student who was dismissed from her Certified Registered Nurse Anesthesiology (CRNA) program at Midwestern University after failing several required courses. Sugg sued Midwestern University and EmergencHealth (EH), alleging breach of contract and fraud. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all causes of action, and Sugg appealed.Sugg enrolled in Midwestern's CRNA program in 2016. She failed a course in her first semester and was placed on academic leave. After retaking the course and receiving a passing grade, she was placed on academic probation due to her low GPA. Sugg later failed her first clinical rotation course and was dismissed from the program. She appealed the decision, and the dismissal was overturned so she could retake the course. However, after failing another course, she was dismissed again. Sugg appealed this decision as well, but it was upheld by the university's Promotion and Graduation Committee and the Dean of the College of Health Sciences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Midwestern University did not breach the contract as it followed its guidelines and dismissed Sugg based on her academic performance. The court also found that Sugg failed to show that the university's decision was a substantial departure from accepted academic norms. Regarding the claims against EH, the court found that EH did not interfere with Sugg's contract with Midwestern University and did not make any false or misleading statements. Therefore, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Sugg v. Midwestern University" on Justia Law

A 13-year-old student, K.M., was found in possession of a folding knife on school grounds. The incident occurred when a campus supervisor took K.M. to the principal's office after a report of him vaping in the school bathroom. K.M. consented to a search of his backpack, which revealed two vape pens and a folding knife with two rusted blades. Later, the principal received a report that K.M. had threatened another student with the knife earlier in the day. Consequently, a police officer issued K.M. a citation for brandishing a knife and for possession of a knife on school grounds.The prosecution filed a wardship petition alleging that K.M. brought a weapon onto school property and brandished the knife. The juvenile court held a contested jurisdictional hearing, where the principal and the police officer testified. The court found K.M. guilty of the first count, designating the offense a felony, and dismissed the second count due to insufficient evidence. The court did not check the box indicating that it had found clear proof that K.M. knew his action was wrong. At a subsequent dispositional hearing, K.M.'s counsel argued that K.M. did not know he was breaking any rules when he had the knife at school because his father told him the knife was legal. The court declared K.M. a ward of the court and placed him on probation for six months.In the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Three, K.M. argued that the prosecution did not prove, and the evidence does not support an implied finding, that he appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the incident. The court agreed with K.M., stating that there was no clear and convincing evidence that K.M. understood the wrongfulness of possessing a knife on school grounds. The court found insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's implied finding that K.M. understood the wrongfulness of bringing a knife onto school property at the time of the incident. Therefore, the judgment was reversed and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "In re K.M." on Justia Law

The case involves a group of petitioners, including parents with children in nonpublic schools, who sought to compel a local school district to transport children to their private schools on days when the public schools were closed. The petitioners requested that the Washingtonville Central School District provide transportation for children attending nonpublic schools on 20 days when public schools were closed. The District denied these requests, citing its policy that it is not required to provide transportation to nonpublic schools on days when the District's schools are not in session. This policy aligns with guidance published by the State Education Department. The petitioners then initiated a hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that the District must transport students to nonpublic schools on all days those schools are open and that the State Education Department's contrary guidance is invalid.The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, concluding that the language of Education Law § 3635 (1) (a) required the District to transport nonpublic school students on all days their schools were open. The court granted the petitioners' motion for summary judgment on their request for declaratory relief, issued a permanent injunction, and denied the State Education Department's cross motion for summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the language in Education Law § 3635 (1) (a) was ambiguous. After reviewing the provision's legislative history, the Appellate Division held that the law "permits, but does not require, school districts outside New York City to transport nonpublic school students to and from school on days when the public schools are closed."The Court of Appeals of New York affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division. The court held that Education Law § 3635 (1) (a) does not require school districts to provide transportation to nonpublic schools on days when public schools are closed. The court found that the phrase "sufficient transportation facilities" in the statute is ambiguous and could be interpreted in various ways. After examining the legislative history of the statute, the court concluded that the Legislature did not intend to require school districts to provide transportation to nonpublic schools on days when public schools are closed. The court also rejected the petitioners' arguments that the District's policy and the State Education Department's interpretation of Education Law § 3635 (1) (a) denied nonpublic school students equal protection of the law and that the State Education Department exceeded its statutory authority under Education Law § 3635 (1) (a). View "Matter of United Jewish Community of Blooming Grove, Inc. v Washingtonville Cent. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

A group of twenty states sued the U.S. Department of Education and other federal entities, challenging the Department's interpretation of Title IX to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in education programs receiving federal financial assistance. The states argued that the Department's interpretation, issued without undergoing the notice-and-comment process required for legislative rules under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), was procedurally and substantively unlawful.The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted the states a preliminary injunction, halting the enforcement of the Department's interpretation. The Department appealed, arguing that the states lacked standing, the interpretation was unreviewable, and the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the states had standing to sue, the Department's interpretation was reviewable, and the states were likely to succeed on their claim that the interpretation was a legislative rule that should have undergone the notice-and-comment process. The court also found that the states would likely suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, the balance of equities tipped in their favor, and the public interest favored the injunction. View "Tennessee v. Department of Education" on Justia Law

Felissa Jones, the mother of an elementary school student, reported to the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (MDCPS) that her son had suffered abuse and neglect by staff at his school. MDCPS responded that it does not investigate reports of abuse at school. Jones then sued MDCPS, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief related to MDCPS’s policy that the agency does not investigate allegations of abuse in out-of-home settings such as schools.The Hinds County Chancery Court denied Jones's motion for a judgment in her favor on the pleadings and granted MDCPS's motion for a judgment on the pleadings, dismissing Jones's complaint. The court ruled that Jones's request for declaratory relief related to MDCPS’s former intake policy was moot because the policy was no longer in effect. It also ruled that the current intake policy does not violate the relevant statutes, but instead conforms to the statutory mandate to refer allegations of child abuse in out-of-home settings to local law enforcement.In the Supreme Court of Mississippi, Jones appealed the lower court's decisions. The court affirmed the lower court's rulings, stating that MDCPS does not have a duty to investigate reports of abuse in out-of-home settings, such as schools, because children who are mistreated by school staff do not fall under the youth court’s limited jurisdiction. The court also found that Jones's claim for declaratory relief from the amended policy had no merit because the policy tracks the relevant statutes. View "Jones v. Department of Child Protection Services" on Justia Law

The Regents of the University of California (Regents) approved the construction of a new hospital at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Parnassus Heights campus. The proposed hospital was alleged to exceed local building height and bulk restrictions. The Parnassus Neighborhood Coalition (the Coalition), a group of property owners residing near the proposed hospital, sued to halt the construction, claiming it was a “threatened nuisance per se.” The Regents argued that as a state entity, they were immune from complying with local building and zoning regulations when engaging in a governmental activity such as constructing university buildings.The trial court disagreed with the Regents, concluding that their immunity depended on whether the proposed construction constituted a governmental or proprietary activity, a question of fact that could not be resolved on a demurrer. The Regents petitioned for a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s order.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Three reviewed the case. The court concluded that the proposed hospital would facilitate the provision of clinical services, thereby advancing UCSF’s academic mission and the Regents’ educational purpose, which is a governmental activity. The court held that the Regents are exempt from the local regulations at issue, and the demurrer should have been sustained. The court issued the writ of mandate, directing the trial court to vacate its order denying the Regents’ demurrer and to enter a new order sustaining the demurrer. View "The Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Timothy Poole, a law graduate who failed the Kentucky Bar Examination five times. Poole claimed that the Kentucky Office of Bar Admissions (KYOBA) and its Executive Director, Valetta Browne, denied him necessary accommodations, leading to his repeated failures. He sought either retroactive admission to the Kentucky Bar Association or permission to retake the exam with all his accommodations.Previously, Poole had initiated a lawsuit in Fayette Circuit Court, alleging negligence on Browne's part regarding the October 2020 exam, which caused him emotional distress, loss of employment opportunities, and other damages. However, the complaint was dismissed, with the court ruling that individuals serving in a judicial capacity are immune from civil liability for their conduct and communications during their duties.The Supreme Court of Kentucky, after reviewing Poole's petition, his interactions with the KYOBA, and the accommodations offered, found that Poole was given appropriate accommodation and ample opportunities to pass the bar exam. The court noted that Poole voluntarily chose to sit for the exam twice without any accommodations, despite having inquired about them and allegedly possessing the required materials for his application. The court also pointed out that Poole never voiced any objection to the additional testing time allowance afforded to him and did not appeal that determination.The court also clarified that the rule limiting attempts to pass the bar exam to five, including attempts on the Uniform Bar Examination (UBE) taken in Kentucky or any other jurisdiction from February 2021 onwards, applies to all attempts, not just those after February 2021.The court concluded that Poole's application process and the exams were conducted in a fair and equitable manner, and any failure to approve and implement additional accommodations was due to Poole's failure to apply for them or seek appellate review of the accommodation granted. The court affirmed the KYOBA's determination that Poole had exhausted his attempts to pass the Kentucky Bar Exam and denied his requests for relief. View "Poole v. Browne" on Justia Law