In this series, we’re covering all of Kirk Strang’s major talking points from his presentation on school district governance at this year’s WASDA Summer Legal Seminar.
Part 1 recapped new laws enacted, while Part 2 covered new laws proposed.
In Part 3, we’re diving into developments in federal and constitutional law with a focus on the First Amendment, along with a handful of tips and notes.
FIRST AMENDMENT
-
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, 601 U.S. 205 (2024).
Relevant Facts:
Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane (Trustees) created public Facebook pages to promote their respective campaigns for the Poway Unified School District (PUSD) Board of Trustees. Following their elections to the board, the trustees continued to utilize their public pages to post PUSD-related content and communicate with their constituents. Christopher and Kimberly Garnier, parents of PUSD students, began posting comments on the Trustees’ pages criticizing the board of trustees. Initially the Trustees deleted the Garniers’ comments before blocking the Garniers altogether. The Garniers sued the Trustees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations to the Garniers’ First Amendment rights.The District Court granted the Trustees qualified immunity regarding the damages claim but allowed the case to proceed on the grounds that the Trustees acted “under color of” state law when they blocked the Garniers from commenting on the Trustees’ Facebook pages. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari (a writ or order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court) in this case and in Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024), to settle federal Circuit court inconsistencies in identifying state action in situations of public officials utilizing social media.
Court Ruling:
In Lindke v. Freed, the Supreme Court found that the state action doctrine requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant “(1) had actual authority to speak on behalf of the State on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority in relevant [social media] posts.” Id. at 204.When establishing this two-prong test, the Court highlighted that § 1983 lists the potential sources of state power: “statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage,” 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and in addition to being granted the authority to speak on behalf of the state, the social media user must also purport to be exercising that state authority in posting. In situations of a “mixed use” social media page, such as Freed’s, it is crucial to examine each post’s content and function when determining whether the post is “personal,” or “official.” Simply asserting that an individual’s Facebook page looks and functions like an outlet for official purposes is not enough to establish state action.
The Supreme Court vacated and remanded O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the Lindke v. Freed opinion.
-
Montemuro v. Jim Thorpe Area Sch. Dist., 99 F.4th 639 (3d Cir. 2024).
Relevant Facts:
In 2019, members of the Jim Thorpe Area School Board in Pennsylvania elected Paul Montemuro as the School Board President. A week later, with no prior notice, the board elected a different individual. Montemuro sued the board and the district for violating his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving him of property without due process.The board and district moved to dismiss, asserting qualified immunity. The District Court denied the motion, and the Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal to address the qualified immunity question as it pertained to the board.
Court Ruling:
The Court considered a two-prong test to determine whether government officials (in this case, the board) should receive qualified immunity: “whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of any constitutional or statutory rights,” and “whether those rights were clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, such that a reasonable official would have known that the conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights.” Montemuro at 642, citing Anglemeyer v. Ammons, 92 F.4th 184, 188 (3d Cir. 2024).Montemuro satisfied the first prong of the test by demonstrating that he was deprived of a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and that he was not afforded due process when the board elected another president. The second prong of the test was satisfied by a combination of U.S. Supreme Court and Third Circuit case law precedent, as well as Pennsylvania law, demonstrating that Montemuro’s rights had been clearly established and that a reasonable board member would have known that denying Montemuro a hearing or notice was a violation of Montemuro’s right to due process.
The Circuit Court affirmed the District Court’s decision to deny the board qualified immunity.
-
St. Augustine Sch. v. Underly, 78 F.4th 349 (7th Cir. 2023).
Relevant Facts:
In 2015, Amy and Joseph Forro requested transportation benefits for their three children attending St. Augustine School, a Catholic school in Hartford, Wisconsin. The local school district and the Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction denied the Forros’ request on the grounds that Wisconsin law stipulates only one school from a single organizational entity in each “attendance area” may qualify for transportation benefits and that the state was already providing benefits to another Catholic school operating in the same area.The Forros and St. Augustine filed suit in state court seeking declaratory judgment, damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees, and any other relief that might be appropriate. The Forros supported their single claim (transportation benefits) with several theories, some premised on state law and some premised on the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.
Court Ruling:
Throughout several years of litigation, multiple courts granted summary judgment to the defendants on the Forros’ federal law theories. Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit certified a question to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, asking the Court to clarify the materials a State Superintendent may use to determine religious affiliation. The Wisconsin Supreme Court responded to that question in St. Augustine School v. Taylor, 2021 WI 70, holding that:[I]n determining whether schools are “affiliated with the same religious denomination” pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 121.51, the Superintendent is not limited to consideration of a school's corporate documents exclusively. In conducting a neutral and secular inquiry, the Superintendent may also consider the professions of the school with regard to the school's self-identification and affiliation, but the Superintendent may not conduct any investigation or surveillance with respect to the school's religious beliefs, practices, or teachings.
The Seventh Circuit determined that the State Superintendent’s decision rested on a “doctrinal determination” that the two schools were a single sponsoring group (the Roman Catholic Church) because of the two schools’ similar religious beliefs, practices, or teachings. As a result, the Seventh Circuit held that the Superintendent’s denial of transportation benefits violated state law and that it was unnecessary to address the constitutional issues since state law offered the Forros a path to relief.
Despite prevailing, the Forros filed a petition for rehearing or clarification, leading the federal district court to issue a declaratory judgment in favor of the Forros but also concluding that the Forros had waived entitlement to damages or injunctive relief under state law when they chose to continue their pursuit of judicial opinion on the merits of their federal law theories.
The Seventh Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling that the nonconstitutional theories were sufficient to provide the Forros with relief but also that the Forros had waived their right to relief under state law theories. The Court remanded the case to the district court to determine what attorneys’ fees, if any, the Forros should be awarded.
-
Bos. Parent Coal. for Acad. Excellence Corp. v. Sch. Comm. for City of Bos., 89 F.4th 46 (1st Cir. 2023).
Relevant Facts:
Prior to 2019, Boston Public Schools utilized a combination of GPA and a standardized test score to determine admission to three selective Exam Schools within the district. In order to help student enrollment at the Exam Schools more closely represent the overall student population of Boston, the school district began to consider modifying the admissions process and developed a new test for the 2021-2022 school year. When Covid-19 restrictions made it challenging to administer the test in person, a Working Group convened by the school district developed a new plan that relied on GPAs for the top 20% highest performing students in the city and subsequently GPAs, zip codes, and median family income to fill the remaining seats at the Exam Schools.The Coalition sued the School Committee, asserting that the new plan intentionally discriminated against White and Asian students, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as state law. The district court found the plan to be constitutional. The First Circuit denied the Coalition’s appeal seeking interim injunctive relief.
Following this decision, The Boston Globe published an exchange of “racist” text messages between members of the School Committee. The Coalition moved for relief under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b), asking the district court to reconsider its judgment or allow for more discovery.
The district court denied the Coalition’s motion, stating that the evidence should have been discovered earlier with due diligence and also that the evidence would not change the result given the Coalition’s failure to articulate a disparate impact on White or Asian students under the plan. Boston Public Schools implemented the plan for the 2021-2022 school year but subsequently replaced it with a new plan based on GPA, a new standardized exam, and census tracts.
Despite the Coalition’s challenge of the plan being moot, the Coalition continued to pursue appeal, pointing to five children of its members who were denied admission to the Exam Schools in 2021. The Coalition requested that the case be remanded to the district court with instructions to the School Committee to admit these five students. The Coalition also appealed the district court’s denial of the Rule 60(b) motion.
Court Ruling:
The Court concluded that the school district’s admissions plan did not merit strict scrutiny because the policy did not result in a racially disparate impact and was not motivated by discriminatory intent. The resulting change to the student population demographics at the Exam Schools was expected and was an intentional attempt to adjust the overrepresentation of White and Asian students. The district’s use of zip code and family income to aid in the admissions process was not the same as admitting students due to their skin color. The Court further agreed that the school committee members’ text message exchange should have been discovered earlier and that the evidence would not change the outcome should a new trial be granted.The Court affirmed the district court’s judgment rejecting the Coalition’s challenges to the plan and its denial of the Coalition’s motion under Rule 60(b).
-
Mahmoud v. McKnight, 102 F.4th 191 (4th Cir. 2024).
Relevant Facts:
In October 2022, Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland announced the approval of a group of LGBTQ-inclusive books to be used as part of the English Language Arts Curriculum. During the first year of the books’ adoption, parents were provided notice and an opt-out option whenever the books were to be utilized in specific lessons. In March 2023, the school district discontinued the notice and opt-out option, claiming that it led to high student absenteeism and placed too great a burden on teachers to develop alternative plans for those students opting out.Parents filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, asserting violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The parents also moved for a preliminary injunction, alleging that the school district, by discontinuing the notice and opt-out process, denied them their constitutional right to direct the religious and educational upbringing of their children.
The District Court declined to issue a preliminary injunction, citing the parents’ failure to demonstrate a cognizable burden on the free exercise of their religion. Parents appealed.
Court Ruling:
The Fourth Circuit concluded that the record did not contain enough evidence to support the parents’ very broad claim. To demonstrate a cognizable burden, the parents had to show that, by not providing an opt-out option, the school district was coercing them or their children to believe or act in ways contrary to their religion. In the court’s view, mere exposure to the LGBTQ-inclusive books did not constitute coercion. With no evidence that a cognizable burden existed, the parents were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim and were therefore ineligible for a preliminary injunction.The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the parents’ motion.
TIPS AND NOTES
- Never forget qualified immunity.
- Make certain that clear, written opt-out procedures are established at the district, building, department, grade level, and specific class. Have an inoffensive alternative and charge the departments with identifying them. Remember, the board has a duty under Wis. Stat. 120.12 to establish the curriculum.
- Speech restrictions must be lawful and justified. Test those restrictions in a conference with the district’s counsel.
This brings us to the end of Part 3 of the series. Next up, our continued discussion on school district governance turns to the annual school board meeting.
If you found this article useful, you might also like: