Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A high school social studies teacher with a history of disciplinary issues was terminated after posting inflammatory messages on her Facebook account, which was followed primarily by former students. The posts, made during nationwide protests following the killing of George Floyd, included comments and memes that were perceived as racially insensitive and vulgar. Although the teacher had set her account to private and did not accept friend requests from current students, the posts quickly circulated within the school community, prompting complaints from students, parents, staff, and widespread media attention. The school district cited her prior suspensions for similar conduct, the disruption caused by her posts, and her failure to appreciate the impact of her comments as reasons for her dismissal.After her termination, the teacher requested a review hearing before the Illinois State Board of Education, where she argued that her Facebook posts were protected by the First Amendment. The hearing officer applied the Pickering balancing test and found that her dismissal did not violate her constitutional rights. Subsequently, the teacher filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against the school district and associated individuals under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a First Amendment violation. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that she was collaterally estopped from bringing her claim and, alternatively, that her claim failed on the merits.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Seventh Circuit held that the teacher failed to present sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find in her favor on her First Amendment claim. Applying the Pickering balancing test, the court concluded that the school district’s interest in addressing actual and potential disruption outweighed the teacher’s interest in free expression, and her posts were not entitled to First Amendment protection. View "Hedgepeth v Britton" on Justia Law

A student, C.M., experienced repeated racial harassment by peers while attending public school in Michigan, including being subjected to racial slurs, threats, and physical assault. The harassment occurred during her sixth, seventh, and ninth grades, prompting her to transfer to another school district in her freshman year. C.M. and her parents alleged that the school district and its officials failed to adequately respond to her complaints, asserting violations of federal law (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause) and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan reviewed the case and granted summary judgment in favor of the school district and its officials. The district court found that, even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to C.M., the school’s responses to the reported incidents did not amount to deliberate indifference under the applicable legal standards. C.M. appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court assumed, without deciding, that deliberate indifference claims are cognizable under Title VI for student-on-student racial harassment. Applying the deliberate indifference standard, the court held that the school’s responses to each reported incident were not clearly unreasonable and reflected good faith efforts, including investigations, disciplinary actions, and proactive measures. The court concluded that C.M. failed to establish deliberate indifference, and therefore her claims under Title VI, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act could not succeed. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Malick v. Croswell-Lexington Dist. Schs." on Justia Law

A high school student in the District of Columbia was sexually assaulted by a classmate in a school bathroom. The student’s mother reported the incident to school officials, prompting an investigation by the District. The District ultimately found the assault claim credible and took steps to support the student, including offering counseling and a school transfer. However, the school principal, before any investigation, expressed disbelief in the student’s claim, made derogatory remarks about her, and attempted to undermine the investigation, even after video evidence corroborated the student’s account. The principal’s conduct included misleading superiors and withholding information. The student and her mother later learned of these actions, which caused them significant distress.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the student’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) for failure to state a claim, finding that the school-student relationship alone did not create a special duty under D.C. law. After discovery, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and Title IX claims, holding that the District’s response was not deliberately indifferent and that the principal’s conduct did not meet the standard for IIED because the remarks were made outside the student’s presence.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the NIED claim and the grant of summary judgment to the District on the Title IX claims, finding the District’s overall response was not clearly unreasonable and that the principal’s actions could not be attributed to the District for Title IX retaliation. However, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the IIED claim against the principal, holding that a reasonable jury could find her conduct was extreme and outrageous, intended or recklessly caused severe emotional distress, and remanded for further proceedings on that claim. View "Doe v. DC" on Justia Law

A high school student sought to establish a pro-life student club at her public high school. The school promptly approved the club after she followed the required procedures, including securing a faculty sponsor and submitting a club questionnaire. The student actively promoted the club at the school’s activities fair, wearing pro-life apparel and displaying related signs. The dispute arose when the student submitted flyers containing political slogans and images for posting on school walls. Administrators instructed her to revise the flyers to comply with the school’s neutral content policy, which limited flyers to the club’s name and meeting details and excluded political content. Instead of revising the flyers, the student and her mother approached another administrator to seek approval, which led the principal to suspend the club’s status for the semester, citing concerns that the club was no longer student-led and that established procedures had been violated. The student was allowed to reapply, and the club was later reinstated.The student and her parents filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleging violations of the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act, claiming that the rejection of the flyers and the club’s suspension were motivated by hostility to her pro-life views. The district court granted summary judgment to the school district and officials, finding no constitutional or statutory violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Seventh Circuit held that the school’s restriction on political content in student club flyers was a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral policy related to legitimate pedagogical concerns under Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. The court also found that the temporary suspension of the club was based on neutral, conduct-related reasons and not on the student’s viewpoint. The court further held that there was no violation of the Equal Access Act and that the plaintiffs had not preserved a separate claim regarding the flyers under that statute. View "E.D. v Noblesville School District" on Justia Law

Three California churches sought to challenge the California Child Day Care Facilities Act and its regulations, which require child day care facilities to be licensed, ensure that children are free to attend religious services or activities of their choice as decided by a child’s authorized representative, and provide notice to parents of this right. The churches, which either had their license revoked or had not yet applied for one, alleged that these requirements conflicted with their religious beliefs and practices, particularly their desire to operate preschools with mandatory religious curricula and without state licensure.Previously, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed the churches’ Free Speech and Free Exercise claims for lack of standing, and their Establishment Clause and Due Process claims for failure to state a claim. The district court entered judgment in favor of the state officials after the churches declined to amend their complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the churches lacked standing to challenge the religious services provision under the Free Exercise Clause because there was no credible threat of enforcement against their intended conduct, given the state’s disavowal of such enforcement and the absence of any history of similar prosecutions. However, the court found that the churches had standing to challenge the licensure requirement under the Free Exercise Clause, but concluded that the requirement was neutral and generally applicable, thus subject only to rational basis review, which it satisfied. The court also rejected the Establishment Clause challenge, finding that the statutory exemptions were based on program type, not religion. The court found standing for the Free Speech challenge to the notice requirement but held that the compelled disclosure was factual, uncontroversial, and reasonably related to a substantial government interest. The Due Process challenge was also rejected. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment but remanded to amend the judgment so that the dismissal of the Free Exercise challenge to the religious services provision would be without prejudice. View "FOOTHILLS CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES V. JOHNSON" on Justia Law

Several individuals who allegedly owed debts to Kentucky public institutions—either for medical services at the University of Kentucky or for educational services at the University of Kentucky, Morehead State University, or the Kentucky Community & Technical College System—challenged the referral of their debts to the Kentucky Department of Revenue for collection. The plaintiffs argued that the statutes used to justify these referrals did not apply to their debts and that the Department unlawfully collected the debts, sometimes without prior court judgments or adequate notice. The Department used its tax collection powers, including garnishments and liens, to recover these debts, and in some cases, added interest and collection fees.In the Franklin Circuit Court, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and monetary relief, including refunds of funds collected. The Circuit Court ruled that the Department was not authorized by statute to collect these debts and held that sovereign immunity did not protect the defendants from the plaintiffs’ claims. The court also certified the medical debt case as a class action. The Court of Appeals reviewed these interlocutory appeals and held that while sovereign immunity did not bar claims for purely declaratory relief, it did bar all claims for monetary relief, including those disguised as declaratory relief.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the consolidated appeals. It held that sovereign immunity does not bar claims for purely declaratory relief or for a refund of funds that were never due to the state, nor does it bar constitutional takings claims. However, the court held that sovereign immunity does bar claims for a refund of funds that were actually due to the state, even if those funds were unlawfully or improperly collected. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings to determine which funds, if any, were never due to the state and thus subject to refund. The court also found that statutory changes rendered prospective declaratory relief in the medical debt case moot, but not retrospective relief. View "LONG V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY" on Justia Law

A 14-year-old student, S.B., who had a history of trauma and mental health challenges, began high school in Appomattox County, Virginia, in August 2021. S.B. identified as male at school and was advised by a counselor that he could use the boys’ restroom. Following this, S.B. was subjected to harassment, threats, and sexual assault by male students. School staff, including counselors, were aware of the harassment and S.B.’s mental health vulnerabilities but did not inform S.B.’s adoptive mother, Blair, about the gender identity issues, the bullying, or the school’s responses. Instead, staff continued to affirm S.B.’s male identity without parental notification and failed to take effective action to stop the harassment. After a series of escalating incidents, S.B. suffered a breakdown, ran away, and was subsequently victimized by sex traffickers.Blair filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia against the school board and staff, alleging deliberate indifference to sexual harassment under Title IX, Monell liability for unconstitutional policy or failure to train, and violations of substantive due process rights. The district court dismissed all claims, finding insufficient allegations of deliberate indifference or Monell liability, and granted qualified immunity to the individual defendants on the due process claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that Blair’s Title IX claim for deliberate indifference against the school board was sufficiently pleaded and should not have been dismissed, as the complaint alleged the school’s response to known harassment was clearly unreasonable. However, the court affirmed dismissal of the Monell and substantive due process claims, finding the allegations were conclusory or the rights not clearly established. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the Title IX claim. View "Blair v. Appomattox County School Board" on Justia Law

The case involves Jane Roe, a student at Marshall University, who was sexually assaulted by her ex-boyfriend, John Doe, at an off-campus party following a football game in September 2022. Roe reported the incident to the police, who then informed the university. The university's Title IX office reviewed the case but determined it fell outside their jurisdiction as the incident occurred off-campus and was not part of a university-sponsored event. The matter was referred to the Office of Student Conduct, which investigated and disciplined both Doe and Roe for their respective violations of the Student Code.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Roe filed a lawsuit against the Marshall University Board of Governors, alleging deliberate indifference and retaliation under Title IX. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the university, finding that the university's response did not amount to deliberate indifference and that the university did not retaliate against Roe for reporting the assault.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the university did not have substantial control over the context of the harassment, as the incident occurred at a private off-campus residence. Additionally, the court found that Roe failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that the university's reasons for disciplining her were pretextual. The court concluded that the university's actions were not retaliatory and upheld the summary judgment in favor of the university. View "Roe v. Marshall University Board of Governors" on Justia Law

A graduate student and resident advisor (RA) at the University of Massachusetts, John Doe, was found responsible for sexual misconduct by the University in 2023. The University sanctioned him based on complaints from four female RAs about his interactions with them. Doe filed a federal lawsuit against the University, its trustees, and the members of the hearing panel, alleging that the University violated his First Amendment rights by punishing him for protected speech and expressive conduct. He sought a preliminary injunction, which the district court considered on a "case stated" basis, consolidating the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on the merits.The district court ruled against Doe, finding that his First Amendment rights had not been violated. The court applied the Tinker standard, determining that the University's actions were justified because Doe's conduct caused or would cause a substantial disruption and invaded the rights of others. The court also held that the Individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for monetary damages. Doe appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the record lacked evidence of substantial disruption to the academic environment or the complainants' jobs. The court also concluded that Doe's conduct did not constitute a pervasive pattern of unwelcome conduct. Therefore, the court held that the University's actions were not justified under the Tinker standard. However, the court affirmed the district court's ruling that the Individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, as the law was not clearly established that their actions violated Doe's First Amendment rights. The judgment was reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "Doe v. University of Massachusetts" on Justia Law

Ayla Royan, a student in Chicago State University's (CSU) Doctor of Pharmacy program, was dismissed after failing two clinical rotations. Royan, who has clinical depression and an eating disorder, claimed her dismissal was due to her disabilities. CSU had accommodated her conditions by granting exam and assignment extensions and a yearlong medical leave. Despite these accommodations, Royan failed her first clinical rotation under Dr. Patel and her second under Dr. Kerner, leading to her dismissal.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of CSU, finding that Royan failed to present sufficient evidence that her dismissal was solely based on her disability. The court held that CSU had accommodated her disabilities and applied its academic standards without discrimination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Royan was not "otherwise qualified" for the program as she failed to meet the academic requirements, specifically passing the clinical rotations. The court also found no evidence of pretext in CSU's stated reasons for her dismissal. Additionally, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that CSU dismissed Royan solely because of her disabilities, as required under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The court emphasized that academic institutions have broad discretion in setting and enforcing academic standards, and CSU's actions were consistent with its policies and procedures. View "Royan v. Chicago State University" on Justia Law