Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

A West Virginia law, known as the "Save Women's Sports Act," stipulates that athletic teams or sports designated for females, women, or girls shall not be open to students of the male sex, with "male" defined as an individual whose biological sex determined at birth is male. The law was challenged by a 13-year-old transgender girl, B.P.J., who has been taking puberty-blocking medication and has publicly identified as a girl since the third grade. B.P.J. argued that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX by preventing her from participating in her school's cross country and track teams.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia initially granted a preliminary injunction, allowing B.P.J. to participate in her school's sports teams. However, upon review of cross-motions for summary judgment, the court reversed its decision, rejecting B.P.J.'s claims and ruling that the law was constitutional and did not violate Title IX.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit disagreed with the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the law could not lawfully be applied to prevent B.P.J. from participating in her school's sports teams. The court found that the law's sole purpose and effect were to prevent transgender girls from playing on girls' teams, which was not substantially related to an important government interest. The court also found that the law violated Title IX by treating B.P.J. worse than people to whom she was similarly situated, depriving her of any meaningful athletic opportunities, and doing so on the basis of sex. The court dismissed the cross-appeal, vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case with instructions to enter summary judgment for B.P.J. on her Title IX claims. View "B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between the Career Colleges and Schools of Texas (CCST) and the United States Department of Education over new regulations that will facilitate certain student loan discharges. The contested rule overturns recent regulations issued by the previous administration and alters thirty years of regulatory practice. The CCST challenged the regulations, arguing that they create uncertainty and potentially significant liability for its members. The district court declined to issue a preliminary injunction against the rule, stating that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated irreparable harm.CCST argued that the new regulations are beyond the Department of Education's statutory authority, violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and infringe on the due process rights of its members. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed with the lower court's findings, concluding that CCST is likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge and that its members will face immediate and irreparable harm if the new regulations are allowed to go into effect.The court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to enjoin and postpone the effective date of the challenged provisions pending final judgment. The court ruled that the Department of Education's new regulations are likely unlawful and that their implementation would cause immediate and irreparable harm to CCST and its members. The court ordered the lower court to issue a preliminary injunction to delay the implementation of the new regulations until the case is finally resolved. View "Career Colleges and Schools of Texas v. United States Department of Education" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Chris Corbitt, a holder of an Enhanced Concealed Carry License (ECCL), who filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against Arkansas State University (ASU) and its trustees. Corbitt sought a declaration that he was entitled to enter the First National Bank Arena (FNB Arena), located on ASU's campus, with a firearm, except for areas hosting a collegiate sporting event. He also sought an order enjoining ASU from prohibiting ECCL holders from entering FNB Arena with a firearm. The FNB Arena is covered by an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) permit, held by NEA Sports Club, which authorizes the consumption and sale of beer and wine on the premises during designated events.The Craighead County Circuit Court granted ASU's motion for summary judgment. The court found that under Arkansas law, FNB Arena can be covered by an ABC permit and ASU can lawfully prohibit firearms in FNB Arena to maintain the alcohol permit while complying with Ark. Code Ann. § 5-73-306(11)(B) as well as Title 3 permit requirements and ABC regulations.The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that ASU can lawfully prohibit firearms at FNB Arena under section 5-73-306. The court reasoned that while universities do not have the discretion to prohibit firearms, ASU is prohibiting firearms at FNB Arena because the facility is covered by an alcohol permit, not because it is attempting to exercise discretion. The court concluded that the unambiguous language of subdivision (11)(B) supports ASU’s position that an ECCL holder may not enter FNB Arena with a firearm. View "CORBETT V. ARKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY" on Justia Law

Several school districts in Oklahoma launched a legal action claiming they had received insufficient State Aid payments for several years due to incorrect calculation by the Oklahoma State Department of Education. They sought to compel the Oklahoma State Board of Education to recover excessive State Aid payments made to other school districts and redirect them to the underfunded districts. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the intervening school districts, stating that the State Board of Education had no duty to seek repayment of excessive State Aid payments until an audit approved by the State Auditor and Inspector was performed.The case was brought before the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma, which agreed with the lower court. However, the court raised the issue of the school districts' standing to compel legislative appropriations and remanded the case for adjudication of standing. Upon remand, the district court granted summary judgment to the appellees, concluding that the school districts failed to demonstrate that they initiated their action before the expiry of any State Aid appropriations from which they sought additional funds. The case was dismissed based on the school districts' lack of standing.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the school districts lacked a legally cognizable aggrieved interest and therefore didn't have standing. The court stated that the school districts sought funds that were previously appropriated and had now lapsed. Hence, the districts had no cause of action to obtain legislatively appropriated funds because those funds had expired by application of the Oklahoma Constitution. View "INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #52 OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY v. WALTERS" on Justia Law

Four ninth-grade football players at Park Hill High School in Kansas City, Missouri, were suspended or expelled after one of them created an online petition titled "Start Slavery Again" and the others posted comments favoring the petition. They filed a lawsuit against the Park Hill School District and various school officials, claiming that their rights to equal protection and due process were violated.In their suit, the students argued that they were deprived of substantive and procedural due process in the disciplinary procedures. They also claimed that they were deprived of equal protection because another student, who they alleged was a willing participant in creating the petition, was not punished. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment for the school district, dismissing all of the students' claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court found that the students received adequate notice and meaningful opportunity to present their case in the school disciplinary proceedings, satisfying the requirements of due process. The court further held that the disciplinary actions taken by the school district were not so egregious as to violate the students' substantive due process rights. Lastly, the court rejected the students' equal protection claim on the basis that the student who was not punished was not similarly situated to the plaintiffs given their greater involvement in creating and supporting the petition. View "Plaintiff A v. Park Hill School District" on Justia Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a private school, Concordia Preparatory School, was sued by a student and her mother for alleged violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally-funded educational programs. The plaintiffs claimed that the school's tax-exempt status under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) constituted federal financial assistance, thus making it subject to Title IX.The school moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that it did not receive federal financial assistance and was therefore not subject to Title IX. The district court denied the school's motion, agreeing with the plaintiffs that the school's tax-exempt status constituted federal financial assistance for Title IX purposes. However, the court certified an interlocutory appeal on this issue.Upon review, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the district court's interpretation. The appellate court reasoned that while tax exemption is a benefit, it is not equivalent to "receiving Federal financial assistance" as required by Title IX. The court explained that the term "assistance" implies aid, help, or support, which suggests a grant of funds. Tax exemption, however, is merely the withholding of a tax burden rather than an affirmative grant of funds. Furthermore, the court distinguished tax exemption from the indirect receipt of federal funds as was the case in Grove City College v. Bell.As such, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and held that tax-exempt status does not equate to "receiving Federal financial assistance" for purposes of Title IX. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Buettner-Hartsoe v. Baltimore Lutheran High School Association" on Justia Law

A high school student, identified as J.G., was required to undergo daily searches for weapons as part of a safety plan after committing firearm-related offenses. However, when J.G. returned to school for his tenth-grade year, he was not searched on the first two days. On his third day, school administrators discovered a loaded handgun in his backpack and he was arrested and charged with weapons-related offenses. J.G. moved to suppress evidence of the handgun, arguing that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights as the safety plan was no longer in effect at the time of the search. His motion was denied by the juvenile court which found that the safety plan, with its requirement for daily searches, was still in place when the handgun was found.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that a search of a student conducted on school grounds in accordance with an individualized, weapons-related safety plan is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that J.G.'s behavior did not create individualized reasonable suspicion on the day he was searched. However, the presence or absence of individualized suspicion is not the full extent of the inception prong of the reasonableness test. The court held that the search of J.G.’s backpack was reasonable at its inception because it was carried out in conformity with a formal safety plan and it was appropriately limited in its scope. The court also found that J.G. had sufficient notice of the search requirement to diminish his expectation of privacy in his backpack. View "People In re J.G." on Justia Law

A medical resident, Dr. Jacquelyn Mares, was dismissed from Wright State University’s (WSU) obstetrics and gynecology residency program due to ongoing complaints and escalating disciplinary actions related to her unprofessional behavior. Following her dismissal, Mares was also terminated from her position at Miami Valley Hospital, where she was employed during her residency. As a result, Mares sued WSU, the hospital, its owner-operator Premier Health Partners, and several WSU employees, alleging violations of her procedural and substantive due process rights, as well as various contract-based state law claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants.In its ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that WSU did not violate Mares' procedural due process rights when it dismissed her from the residency program. The court found that WSU had followed its internal procedures closely and that Mares was afforded more than enough process. Also, the court held that WSU did not violate Mares' substantive due process rights. It determined that WSU's decision to dismiss her was not arbitrary or capricious, nor was it conscience-shocking. Finally, the court held that Miami Valley Hospital did not breach its contractual duties when it terminated Mares after her dismissal from WSU’s residency program. The court concluded that the hospital acted within the scope of the employment contract. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court’s decision to grant the defendants' summary judgment. View "Mares v. Miami Valley Hospital" on Justia Law

In this case, a minor student known as A.J.T., who suffers from epilepsy, sued her school district, Osseo Area Schools, alleging disability discrimination for not providing her evening instruction sessions. A.J.T.'s epilepsy is severe in the mornings, preventing her from attending school until noon. The child's parents requested evening instruction so that she could have a school day closer in length to her peers. However, the school district denied these requests.A.J.T., through her parents, filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court granted Osseo Area Schools' motion for summary judgment, finding that the school district could not be held liable as it did not act with bad faith or gross misjudgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court stated that while A.J.T. might have established a genuine dispute about whether the district was negligent or even deliberately indifferent, she failed to prove that school officials acted with "either bad faith or gross misjudgment." The court found that the school district did not ignore A.J.T.'s needs or delay its efforts to address them. It further held that in cases involving educational services for disabled children, mere noncompliance with applicable federal statutes or failure to provide a reasonable accommodation is not enough to trigger liability. The plaintiff must prove that the school officials acted with bad faith or gross misjudgment. In this case, A.J.T. failed to identify conduct that cleared that high bar, and as such, the court held that summary judgment was proper. View "A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered the appeal of Osseo Area Schools (the District) against the ruling of the district court, which held that the District had denied A.J.T., a student with a disability, a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). A.J.T. suffers from a rare form of epilepsy, causing seizures that prevent her from attending school before noon. Consequently, her parents had requested the District to provide evening instruction, which was refused.The district court found that the District's refusal to provide A.J.T. with evening instruction resulted in her making de minimis progress overall and even regressing in some areas, such as toileting. The court also determined that A.J.T. would have made more progress had she received evening instruction. On these grounds, the court concluded that the District had failed to provide A.J.T. with a FAPE.On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The court rejected the District's argument that the IDEA's scope was limited to regular school hours, noting nothing in the IDEA suggested such a limitation. Furthermore, the court agreed with the district court's assessment of A.J.T.'s limited progress and regression in toileting. After considering the evidence, the court concluded that the District's refusal to provide evening instruction, based solely on administrative concerns, resulted in A.J.T.'s minimal progress and denied her a FAPE. View "Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 v. A.J.T." on Justia Law