Recent Legal Decisions
U.S. Supreme Court
Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 20-255, June 2021
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a school district violated a student's First Amendment rights when it suspended her from the cheerleading squad for Snapchat posts that were critical of the school, one of which contained vulgar language and gestures. The posts were made outside of school hours, from a location off school grounds, using the student's personal cell phone, and to an audience consisting of her private circle of Snapchat friends.
Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 20-255, June 2021
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a school district violated a student's First Amendment rights when it suspended her from the cheerleading squad for Snapchat posts that were critical of the school, one of which contained vulgar language and gestures. The posts were made outside of school hours, from a location off school grounds, using the student's personal cell phone, and to an audience consisting of her private circle of Snapchat friends.
U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
A.C. v. M.S.D. of Martinsville, B.E. and S.E. v. Vigo County School Corp., 75 F.4th 760 (7th Cir. 2023), August 2023
Two school corporations appealed the issuance of preliminary injunctions in favor of three transgender students. The school corporations requested that the court overturn its previous holding in Whitaker ex rel. Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 Board of Education regarding the rights of transgender students using restrooms consistent with their gender identity. The Seventh Circuit held that the students had Title IX and Equal Protection claims. The Martinsville school board filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of this decision. The petition was denied.
N.J. and A.L. v. David Sonnabend and Justin Bestor, 21-1959, June 2022
Two students from two different school districts sued school administrators when they were told they could no longer wear T-shirts that depicted guns. The Seventh Circuit acknowledged the authority of school officials to permit restrictions on student speech if school authorities reasonably forecast that the speech would materially and substantially disrupt the order of the school environment.
A.C. v. M.S.D. of Martinsville, B.E. and S.E. v. Vigo County School Corp., 75 F.4th 760 (7th Cir. 2023), August 2023
Two school corporations appealed the issuance of preliminary injunctions in favor of three transgender students. The school corporations requested that the court overturn its previous holding in Whitaker ex rel. Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 Board of Education regarding the rights of transgender students using restrooms consistent with their gender identity. The Seventh Circuit held that the students had Title IX and Equal Protection claims. The Martinsville school board filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of this decision. The petition was denied.
N.J. and A.L. v. David Sonnabend and Justin Bestor, 21-1959, June 2022
Two students from two different school districts sued school administrators when they were told they could no longer wear T-shirts that depicted guns. The Seventh Circuit acknowledged the authority of school officials to permit restrictions on student speech if school authorities reasonably forecast that the speech would materially and substantially disrupt the order of the school environment.
U.S. District Court
E.D., et al v. Noblesville School District, et al, 1:21-cv-03075, March 2024
Stringham v. Carmel Clay Schools, 2024 WL 51185 (S.D. Ind.), January 2024
Carmel was granted summary judgment in part and denied in part, in the case of a former counselor who alleged employment discrimination and retaliation due to her sex, race, and national origin, as well as a deprivation of equal protection and due process rights. The counselor claimed that she was targeted for being a homosexual Hispanic woman.
Smiley v. Jenner, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2023 WL 5122437 (S.D. Ind.), July 2023
Smiley, a teacher, requested a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of House Enrolled Act 1608-2023 and its provisions that prohibit teaching human sexuality to pre-kindergarten to third-grade students. The teacher claimed that the statute was unconstitutional as it violated the First Amendment by limiting her speech and that it also violated the Fourteenth Amendment as it was too vague. The federal district court judge found that teaching in a classroom is considered "government speech" and is not protected by the First Amendment. Additionally, the court held that the teacher had failed to prove that the statute was vague and that the terms "instruction" and "human sexuality" were commonly known. This court denied the teacher's motion for a preliminary injunction, stating that she failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on her claims. The teacher has since filed an appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Anderson Federation of Teachers v. Todd Rokita, 1:21-cv-01767, June 2021
E.D., et al v. Noblesville School District, et al, 1:21-cv-03075, March 2024
Stringham v. Carmel Clay Schools, 2024 WL 51185 (S.D. Ind.), January 2024
Carmel was granted summary judgment in part and denied in part, in the case of a former counselor who alleged employment discrimination and retaliation due to her sex, race, and national origin, as well as a deprivation of equal protection and due process rights. The counselor claimed that she was targeted for being a homosexual Hispanic woman.
Smiley v. Jenner, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2023 WL 5122437 (S.D. Ind.), July 2023
Smiley, a teacher, requested a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of House Enrolled Act 1608-2023 and its provisions that prohibit teaching human sexuality to pre-kindergarten to third-grade students. The teacher claimed that the statute was unconstitutional as it violated the First Amendment by limiting her speech and that it also violated the Fourteenth Amendment as it was too vague. The federal district court judge found that teaching in a classroom is considered "government speech" and is not protected by the First Amendment. Additionally, the court held that the teacher had failed to prove that the statute was vague and that the terms "instruction" and "human sexuality" were commonly known. This court denied the teacher's motion for a preliminary injunction, stating that she failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on her claims. The teacher has since filed an appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Anderson Federation of Teachers v. Todd Rokita, 1:21-cv-01767, June 2021
Indiana Supreme Court
WTHR-TV v. Hamilton Southeastern Schools, and Rick Zimmer, 21S-MI-345, January 2022
Culver Community Teachers Assoc. et al. v. IEERB, 21S-PL-64, September 2021
WTHR-TV v. Hamilton Southeastern Schools, and Rick Zimmer, 21S-MI-345, January 2022
Culver Community Teachers Assoc. et al. v. IEERB, 21S-PL-64, September 2021
Indiana Public Access Counselor
Klaasen v. East Noble School Corp., Formal Complaint No. 23-FC-108, December 2023
The Public Access Counselor determined that the East Noble School Corporation did not violate the Open Door Law, nor the Access to Public Records Act, when it declined to release the names of preliminary committee members who reviewed library book challenges. The committee was appointed by the superintendent and consisted solely of internal staff.
Klaasen v. East Noble School Corp., Formal Complaint No. 23-FC-108, December 2023
The Public Access Counselor determined that the East Noble School Corporation did not violate the Open Door Law, nor the Access to Public Records Act, when it declined to release the names of preliminary committee members who reviewed library book challenges. The committee was appointed by the superintendent and consisted solely of internal staff.
For further information contact:
Julie M. Slavens, Senior Counsel/
Director of Policy Services Phone: (317) 639-4362 Email: jslavens@isba-ind.org |