Recent Cases

Resources

• School district not liable for constitutional violation resulting from enforcement of state’s racial balancing law [HTML 7,632kb]
  A federal district court in Wisconsin has rule that a school district, which admittedly violated a white student’s equal protection rights by denying the student’s transfer request, was not liable because the violation occurred as a result of the school district complying with a state law prohibiting it from allowing transfers that increase racial imbalance.
  
• California’s English-only standardized tests do not violate NCLB [HTML 5,956kb]
  A California state appellate court has ruled that the California State Board of Education did not abuse its discretion and violate the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) when it decided to test limited English proficient (LEP) students only in English.
  
• Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 08-322 (U.S. June 22, 2009) [HTML 4,559kb]
  The U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, has ruled that the federal Voting Rights Act’s (VRA) preclearance “bailout” provision applies to all political subdivisions of a state, regardless of whether the subdivision conducts voter registration.
  
• Supreme Court gives Arizona another chance to argue ELL programs adequate [HTML 7,745kb]
  The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 split, has ruled that factual and legal changes that have occurred since a U.S. district court ruled in 2000 that its funding scheme for English Language Learners (ELL) violated the federal Equal Educational Opportunity Act (EEOA) should entitle the state to argue that, under federal court rules, it is entitled to relief from the court’s order.
  
• Robinson v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ., No. 07-6076 (6th Cir. May 21, 2009) [HTML 3,793kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (KY, MI, OH, TN) has ruled that a U.S. district court improperly denied part of a joint motion for declaration of unitary status for Shelby County Schools (SCS), which had been under a court-ordered desegregation plan for four decades.
  
• Harper v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., No. 07-55224 (9th Cir. Mar. 10, 2009) [HTML 4,139kb]
  In a brief memorandum opinion in a case involving a California district that restricted a T-shirt that expressed religious objections to homosexuality, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, GU, MP) has ruled that two high school students’ First Amendment claims for equitable and declaratory relief are moot and that school officials are entitled to qualified immunity from their First Amendment claims for nominal damages.
  
• Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. North Little Rock Sch. Dist., No. 07-1866 (8th Cir. Apr. 2, 2009) [HTML 2,651kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (AR, IA, MN, MO, ND, NE, SD) has decreed that Little Rock School District (LRSD) has attained completely unitary status.
  
• Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist., No. 07-714 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2009) [HTML 5,167kb]
  A U.S. district court has ruled that the unequal participation opportunities in a California school district’s athletic program violate Title IX.
  
• Gay-Straight Alliance of Yulee High Sch. v. School Bd. of Nassau County, No. 09-112 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 11, 2009) [HTML 4,176kb]
  A federal district court in Florida has granted a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) student club’s request for a preliminary injunction to bar Nassau County School District (NCSD) officials from denying the GSA equal access to school facilities, treatment and recognition.
  
• American Civil Rights Found. v. Berkeley Unified Sch. Dist., No. A121137 (Cal. App. Mar. 17, 2009) [HTML 6,086kb]
  A California state court of appeal has ruled that Berkley Unified School District’s (BUSD) student assignment plan, “which aims to achieve social diversity by using neighborhood demographics when assigning students to schools,” does not violate article I, § 31 of the California Constitution, also known as Prop 209.
  
• Comfort v. Lynn Sch. Comm., No. 08-1735 (1st Cir. Mar. 12, 2009) [HTML 4,746kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (MA, ME, NH, RI, PR) has ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) (PICS), overturning student assignment plans in Seattle, Washington and Jefferson County, Kentucky, could not form the basis for striking down a student assignment plan in Lynn, Massachusetts that considers race as a factor.
  
• Bartlett v. Strickland, No. 07–689 (U.S. Mar. 9, 2009) [HTML 3,038kb]
  In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) does not require the drawing of election district lines so that a racial minority that would make up less than 50 percent of the voting-age population in the redrawn district could join with crossover voters to elect the minority’s candidate of choice.
  
• Hansen v. Board of Trustees of Hamilton Southeastern Sch. Corp., No. 08-1205 (7th Cir. Dec. 23, 2008) [HTML 3,505kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (IN, IL, WI) has ruled that an Indiana school district could only be held liable under Title IX for teacher-student sexual harassment if it had actual notice of, and was deliberately indifferent to, the harassment.
  
• Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., No. 07-1125 (U.S. Jan. 21, 2009) [HTML 7,308kb]
  The U.S. Supreme Court, in unanimous decision, has ruled that Title IX does not preclude a §1983 action alleging unconstitutional gender discrimination in schools.
  
• American Civil Rights Found. v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., B205943 (Cal. App. Dec. 19, 2008) [HTML 4,547kb]
  A California appeals court has ruled that Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD) Magnet and Permit with Transportation (PWT) programs do not violate the state’s Proposition 209 because they were part of an existing court-ordered desegregation plan at the time Prop 209 went into effect.
  
• Gillman v. Sch. Bd. for Holmes County, Fla., No. 08-34 (N.D. Fla. July 24, 2008) [HTML 6,195kb]
  A U.S. district court in Florida has ruled that a high school principal’s decision, later ratified by the school board, to prohibit students from displaying messages or wearing symbols advocating acceptance of gay people violated the students’ First Amendment right to free speech.
  
• Samnorwood Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Texas Educ. Agency, No. 06-41347 (Jun. 24, 2008) [HTML 4,070kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (LA, MS, TX) has ruled that a federal court desegregation order is not applicable to two Texas school districts that, having voluntarily and completely desegregated by vote of their respective school boards prior to the desegregation suit being filed, were not parties to the suit and never under a desegregation order.
  
• Morrison v. Bd. of Educ. of Boyd County, No. 06-5380, Nos. 06-5406/5407 (6th Cir. Apr. 9, 2008) [HTML 4,749kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (KY, MI, OH, TN) has reversed itself and ruled that a student’s free speech claim for nominal damages based on a Kentucky school district’s previous anti-harassment policy was not justiciable.
  
• P.A.C.E. v. Kansas City Mo. Sch. Dist., No. 06-3318 (Feb. 27, 2008) [HTML 3,971kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (AR, IA, MN, MO, ND, NE, SD) has struck down a Missouri law requiring the Kansas City Missouri School District (KCMSD) to use property tax revenue that was set aside to pay off court-ordered desegregation bonds to fund charter schools.
  
• Anderson v. Sch. Bd. of Madison County, No. 06-60902 (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 2008) [HTML 4,114kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (LA, MS, TX) has granted Madison County School District’s (MCSD) motion for unitary status, releasing it from a federal desegregation order it has been under since 1969.
  
• American Civil Rights Found. v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., No. BC 341363 (Dec. 10, 2007) [HTML 2,669kb]
  A California trial court has ruled that Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD) consideration of race in its magnet schools admissions policy does not violate the amendment to the state constitution known as Proposition 209, which bars preferential treatment in public institutions, including schools, based on race.
  
• Jock v. Ransom, No. 05-1108 (N.D. N.Y. June 28, 2007) [HTML 3,303kb]
  A federal district court in New York has ruled that school officials did not violate the equal protection rights of Native American students by ending the practice of allowing recitation of a Mohawk thanksgiving address over the school public address system and during certain school events.
  
• Holton v. City of Thomasville Sch. Dist., No. 06-12984 (11th Cir. July 3, 2007) [HTML 1,832kb]
  fThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (AL, GA, FL) has affirmed that a school district’s program of "ability grouping" or "tracking," in which students are grouped into different academic tracks based on their abilities, does not violate minority students’ equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  
• Parents Involved in Cmty. Schools v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, No. 05-908 [HTML 7,377kb]
  The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that student assignment plans in Jefferson County, Kentucky and Seattle, Washington that take a student’s race into consideration violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  
• American Civil Rights Found. v. Berkeley Unified Sch. Dist., No. 06292139 (Cal. Super. Ct. Apr. 6, 2007) [HTML 5,006kb]
  A California state court has ruled that two out of three programs in Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) that take student race into account do not violate California’s Proposition 209 prohibition “on discrimination or preference on account of race.”
  
• L.W. v. Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education, No. 05-111 (N.J. Feb. 21, 2007) [HTML 6,384kb]
  In a unanimous decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that a school district was liable under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) for student-on-student sexual harassment based on sexual orientation.
  
• Knight v. Alabama, No. 05-11527 (11th Cir. Jan. 31, 2007) [HTML 3,922kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has rejected a claim that the inadequacy of the State of Alabama’s K-12 public school funding system has a segregative effect on the state’s system of higher education because state funds intended for higher education are diverted to lower education.
  
• Santamaria v. Dallas Independent School District, No. 06-692 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2006) [HTML 5,366kb]
  A Texas federal district court has ruled that the principal of a Dallas Independent School District (DISD) elementary school unconstitutionally and intentionally segregated Hispanic and African-American students from white students.
  
• Powell v. Bunn, No. S52659 (Ore. Sept. 8, 2006) [HTML 3,019kb]
  The Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that school officials did not discriminate against an atheist student when they allowed a Boy Scout representative to make a recruiting presentation in his classroom.
  
• Neighborhood Schools For Our Kids v. Capistrano Unified School District, No. 05-07288 (Cal. Super. Ct. Aug. 25, 2006) [HTML 3,141kb]
  A California state court has denied both sides’ motions for summary judgment in a challenge to a school board’s attempts to maintain racial and ethnic balance in its schools.
  
• White County High School Peers Rising In Diverse Education (PRIDE) v. White County School District, No. 06-29 (D. Ga. July 14, 2006) [HTML 4,117kb]
  A Georgia federal district court has granted a Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) club a permanent injunction to prevent White County High School (WCHS) from barring the group meeting at school.
  
• Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, No. 05-38 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 17, 2005) [HTML 4,016kb]
  A Kentucky federal district court has ruled that a school district's mandatory diversity training program, which was implemented as part of a settlement of an earlier lawsuit brought on behalf of students seeking to form a Gay Straight Alliance club (GSA), does not violate the free speech, equal protection, or free exercise of religion rights of students and parents who object to the training despite the fact that it calls for tolerance of homosexuality.
  
• Washington v. Pierce, No. 03-487 (Vt. Dec. 16, 2005) [HTML 5,047kb]
  The Vermont Supreme Court has ruled that a student failed to state a cause of action under Vermont's Public Accommodations Act (VPAA) for student-on-student harassment, because she failed to show that she first had exhausted the administrative remedies available to her or to demonstrate a valid reason for not having done so.