SAGE v. Osseo Area Sch. - Dist. No. 279, No. 07-3576 (8th Cir. Aug. 29, 2008)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (AR, IA, MN, MO, ND, NE, SD) has upheld a Minnesota federal district court’s order affording a gay student club the same access provided to other noncurricular high school clubs. The Eighth Circuit agreed with the lower court that some student groups designated by the school as “curricular” actually were noncurricular under the federal Equal Access Act (EAA) but, in violation of that act, were given greater access than was given Straights and Gays for Equality (SAGE). Under Osseo Area Schools – District No. 279’s policy, student groups are classified as either curricular or noncurricular. Unlike curricular groups, noncurricular groups may meet only before and after school, may only use a community bulletin board or place a poster outside their meeting place, do not receive school funds, and cannot engage in fundraising or field trips. The district court granted SAGE’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the school district, which the Eighth Circuit affirmed in SAGE I. On remand, SAGE moved for partial summary judgment, seeking to make the preliminary injunction permanent. The district court granted this motion, and the school district then appealed this decision.
The Eighth Circuit stated that the issue was whether the district court had correctly determined that the student groups that received more favorable access than SAGE also were noncurricular, thus triggering the EEA. While conceding that the EAA does not define “noncurriculum-related,” the appeals court noted the U.S. Supreme Court interpretation as “any student group that does not directly relate to the body of courses offered by the school” and agreed with the lower court that the school’s Spirit Council had been mislabeled curriculum-related when it actually is noncurriculum-related. Although under Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990), “student government may well be curriculum related,” the Eighth Circuit found it does not follow that every student group labeled as a subgroup of student government automatically is curriculum-related. This would allow for easy circumvention of the EAA, the court warned, by identifying favored groups as subgroups of student government. Mergens carefully limited the designation of a school’s student government as curriculum-related “to the extent that [the group] addresses concerns, solicits opinions, and formulates proposals pertaining to the body of courses offered by the school.” Here, by contrast, the Spirit Council’s function was social activity planning.
SAGE v. Osseo Area Sch. - Dist. No. 279, No. 07-3576 (8th Cir. Aug. 29, 2008)
[Editor’s Note: Information on the facts leading to the case, on the earlier rulings, and on the school district’s response is below. A summary of another recent court decision in a similar dispute, this one in Florida, with links to other cases and resources on the Equal Access Act, is at the second link.]
NSBA School Law pages on SAGE case
NSBA School Law pages on Gonzalez v. Sch. Bd. of Okeechobee County