Skip to main content

Briefs and Opinions

Appellate Section - Education

Briefs and Opinions

  • C.W. v. Smith (11th Cir.) - Amicus

    • C.W.'s complaint sufficiently alleged that he experienced discrimination on the basis of sex

     

    DocumentDate 
    Brief as Amicus11/07/24

  • Bridge v. Oklahoma State Department of Education (10th Cir.) - Amicus

    • The district court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ claim that SB615 violates Title IX
    • The district court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ claim that SB615 violates the Equal Protection Clause

     

    DocumentDate 
    Brief as Amicus07/19/24

  • M.K. v. Pearl River County School District (5th Cir.) - Amicus

    • Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation

     

    DocumentDate 
    Brief as Amicus04/22/24

  • Charter Day School v. Peltier (S. Ct.) - Amicus

    • The court of appeals correctly held that CDS’s enforcement of its student dress code is state action

     

    DocumentDate 
    Certiorari Denied, reported at 143 S. Ct. 265706/26/23
    Brief as Amicus in Response to the Court's Invitation05/22/23

  • B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education (4th Cir.) - Amicus

    • H.B. 3293 violates the Equal Protection Clause as applied to transgender girls like B.P.J.
    • H.B. 3293 violates Title IX

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 98 F.4th 54204/16/24
    Brief as Amicus04/03/23

  • S.C. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (6th Cir.) - Amicus

    • The court should affirm the district court’s ruling in S.C.’s favor on her deliberate-indifference claim based on students’ retaliatory threats and harassment
    • The court should vacate the dismissal of S.C.’s other Title IX claims and remand for reconsideration of those claims and the district court’s damages award

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 86 F.4th 70711/15/23
    Brief as Amicus12/12/22

  • Fairfax County School Board v. Jane Doe (S. Ct.) - Amicus

    • The court of appeals correctly held that Title IX liability “is not necessarily limited to cases” where a school’s deliberate indifference to an alleged sexual assault “‘cause[s]’” additional “post-notice” harassment
    • This case does not implicate any circuit conflict warranting this Court’s review

     

    DocumentDate 
    Certiorari Denied, reported at 143 S. Ct. 44211/21/22
    Brief as Amicus in Response to Court's Invitation09/27/22

  • Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence Corp. v. School Committee of Boston (1st Cir.) - Amicus

    • Ensuring that students of all races enjoy equal educational opportunities is not a suspect purpose
    • If this court determines strict scrutiny applies, it should remand for the district court to evaluate whether the policy passes muster under that standard

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 89 F.4th 4612/19/23
    Brief as Amicus09/09/22

  • Brown v. Arizona (9th Cir.) - Amicus

    • A school’s disciplinary authority over a harasser’s conduct can provide sufficient evidence of substantial control

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals En Banc Decision, reported at 82 F.4th 86309/25/23
    Brief as Amicus (invitation)08/08/22

  • Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board (4th Cir.) - Amicus

    • Ensuring that students of all races enjoy equal educational opportunities is not a suspect purpose
    • If strict scrutiny were to apply to the challenged race-neutral policy, the strict-scrutiny inquiry must be adapted for this novel context

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 68 F.4th 86405/23/23
    Brief as Amicus05/13/22

  • Borel v. School Board St. Martin Parish (5th Cir.) - Intervenor/Appellee

    • Consistent with Supreme Court and circuit precedent, the panel correctly held that the district court continues to have remedial jurisdiction
    • The district court had jurisdiction to enter Consent Orders in 2015 and 2016 and order additional relief in 2021
    • The district court correctly denied the Board’s motion for unitary status as to student assignment and discipline
    • This appeal does not divest the district court of continuing jurisdiction in this case
    • The Board’s motion for a stay should be denied

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Order, available at 2022 WL 1775143312/14/22
    Opposition to Petition for Rehearing En Banc10/18/22
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 44 F.4th 30708/11/22
    Brief as Intervenor-Appellee02/28/22
    Opposition to Opposed Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal02/14/22

  • Adams v. School Board of St. John's County (11th Cir.) - Amicus

    • The School Board violated the Equal Protection clause when it prohibited Adams from using the boys’ restrooms
    • The School Board violated Title IX when it prohibited Adams from using the boys’ restrooms

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision En Banc, reported at 57 F.4th 79112/30/22
    En Banc Brief as Amicus11/26/21

  • Peltier v. Charter Day School, et al. (4th Cir.) - Amicus

    • CDS’s implementation and enforcement of its dress code constitutes State action under the Equal Protection Clause

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals En Banc Decision, reported at 37 F.4th 10406/14/22
    En Banc Brief as Amicus11/18/21

  • Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corp. (7th Cir.) - Amicus

    • The district court correctly relied on unrebutted evidence of student harm in determining that Kluge’s accommodation had caused undue hardship
    • The district court correctly concluded that school officials reasonably feared that Kluge’s accommodation could have exposed the school to an increased risk of Title IX liability

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Order (VACATING PREVIOUS DECISION), available at 2023 WL 484232407/28/23
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 64 F.4th 86104/07/23
    Brief as Amicus11/08/21

  • Balow v. Michigan State University (6th Cir.) – Amicus

    • The district court erred in its application of prong one of the Three-Part Test

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 24 F.4th 105102/01/22
    Brief as Amicus05/26/21

  • United States v. Junction City School District v. Arkansas Department of Education (8th Cir.) – Appellee

    • The panel should reverse the district court’s 2019 order and remand for further proceedings
    • The court should grant panel rehearing but not rehearing en banc

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 14 F.4th 65808/25/21
    Response to Court's Request for Supplemental Briefing06/14/21
    Court of Appeals Order03/24/21
    Response to Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc03/19/21

  • Doe v. Dallas Independent School District (5th Cir.) – Amicus

    • The IDEA’s exhaustion requirement does not apply to claims arising under Title IX
    • Alternatively, plaintiff’s Title IX claim is not subject to IDEA administrative exhaustion because it does not seek relief for the denial of a FAPE, and the relief sought is not available under the IDEA

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 941 F.3d 22410/25/19
    Brief as Amicus11/27/18

  • Smith v. School Board of Concordia Parish/Delta Charter Group v. School Board of Concordia Parish (5th Cir.) – Appellee

    • Students for Fair Admissions does not call into question the district court’s authority to keep the 2018 Consent Order in place
    • The court should affirm the district court’s denial of Delta’s motion to modify the 2018 Consent Order
    • Delta has waived the argument that it is not subject to the desegregation orders in this case
    • The district court did not clearly err in finding that Delta violated the 2013 consent order, impeding desegregation in Concordia Parish
    • The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a remedy

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 88 F.4th 58812/13/23
    Supplemental Brief as Appellee07/27/23
    Brief as Appellee06/14/23
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 906 F.3d 32710/12/18
    Brief as Appellee12/21/17

  • Fryberger v. University of Arkansas (8th Cir.) – Intervenor

    • Section 2000d-7 validly conditions the receipt of federal funds on states’ waiver of their Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits seeking monetary relief for intentional violations of Title IX

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 889 F.3d 47105/02/18
    Brief as Intervenor11/22/17

  • Cowan v. Cleveland School District (5th Cir.) – Appellee

    • The district court reasonably concluded that the District’s proposed plans would perpetuate the current unconstitutional segregation at East Side and D.M. Smith
    • The District conceded, and the district court correctly found, that the United States’ consolidation plan is constitutional and feasible
    • With only one constitutional plan before it, the district court properly rejected the District’s arguments regarding white flight
    • The District’s suggestion that the United States insists on a racial quota is meritless, and the district court correctly rejected it

     

    DocumentDate 
    Dismissed03/09/17
    Opposition to Motion to Stay and Cross-Motion to Expedite Appeal01/03/17
    Brief as Appellee12/06/16

  • Issa v. The School District of Lancaster (3d Cir.) – Amicus

    • This Court should apply Castaneda’s three-part framework to claims arising under Section 1703(f )
    • The district court properly applied Castaneda in finding plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits of their EEOA claim

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 847 F.3d 12101/30/17
    Brief as Amicus10/24/16

  • Doe v. Mercy Catholic Medical Center (3d Cir.) – Amicus

    • Medical residency is an “education program or activity” within the meaning of Title IX
    • Title VII and Title IX are separate enforcement mechanisms
    • The fact that a medical resident can bring a sex discrimination claim under Title VII does not preclude her from bringing a claim for the same conduct under Title IX

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 850 F.3d 54503/07/17
    Brief as Amicus06/09/16

  • G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board (4th Cir.) – Amicus

    • The restroom policy’s disparate treatment of transgender students is a form of unlawful sex discrimination under Title IX
    • The court erred in failing to accord deference under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997), to the Department of Education’s interpretation of Section 106.33, which provides that, when schools elect to provide separate restrooms for boys and girls, they must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 822 F.3d 70904/19/16
    Brief as Amicus10/28/15

  • Hill v. Madison County School Board (11th Cir.) – Amicus

    • The district court erred in granting the School Board summary judgment on plaintiff's Title IX claim
    • Plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether school administrators had actual notice of the substantial risk CJC posed to students
    • Plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether school administrators were deliberately indifferent to CJC's history of sexual and violent misconduct

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 797 F.3d 94808/12/15
    Brief as Amicus09/17/14

  • Flores v. U.S. Department of Education (4th Cir.) – Respondent

    • Flores's petition for review should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because he does not have the right to judicial review under either Title VI or the Administrative Procedure Act

     

    DocumentDate 
    Dismissed01/19/16
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 619 F. App’x 24410/19/15
    Motion to Dismiss10/08/15
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 581 F. App'x 30308/21/14
    Motion to Dismiss08/01/14

  • Cowan & U.S. v. Cleveland School District (5th Cir.) – Appellant

    • The court's freedom of choice plan does not meet constitutional requirements
    • The history of school choice under the majority-to-minority transfer program indicates that a freedom of choice plan would not work today
    • Pre-enrollment data for the coming school year indicates that the middle and high schools will remain segregated under the court's plan
    • Consolidation of the schools would be a more effective method of achieving desegreagation

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 748 F.3d 23304/01/14
    Reply Brief12/09/13
    Brief as Appellant09/16/13

  • Flores v. Huppenthal (9th Cir.) – Amicus

    • The district court failed to properly apply the second and third prongs of Castaneda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981), in determining whether the State has complied with the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, 20 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 789 F.3d 99406/15/15
    Brief as Amicus09/13/13

  • Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High School District (9th Cir.) – Amicus

    • A 6.7% or 47-athlete participation gap between female enrollment and female athletic participation was evidence that the school district had not provided substantially proportionate athletic opportunities
    • The school district had not shown a history and continuing practice of program expansion
    • The school district had not shown full and effective accommodation of female athletic interest and abilities

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 768 F.3d 84309/19/14
    Brief as Amicus05/22/13

  • Su v. U.S. Department of Education for Civil Rights, Region XV (6th Cir.) – Respondent

    • Su's petition for review should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because he does not have the right to judicial review under either Title VI or the Administrative Procedure Act

     

    DocumentDate 
    Dismissed07/25/13
    Motion to Dismiss04/08/13

  • Flores v. U.S. Department of Education (D.C. Cir.) – Respondent

    • Flores' petition for review should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because he does not have the right to judicial review under either Title VI or the Administrative Procedure Act

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Order12/03/14
    Response to Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction07/31/14
    Motion to Dismiss07/17/14
    Dismissed10/15/13
    Motion to Dismiss06/20/13
    Dismissed12/11/13
    Motion to Dismiss04/08/13

  • Flores v. U.S. Department of Education (5th Cir.) – Respondent

    • Flores' petition for review should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because he does not have the right to judicial review under either Title VI or the Administrative Procedure Act

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Order10/19/15
    Motion to Dismiss09/30/15
    Court of Appeals Order08/11/15
    Motion to Dismiss07/31/15
    Dismissed05/27/15
    Motion to Dismiss05/06/15
    Dismissed07/30/14
    Response to Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal07/24/14
    Motion to Dismiss07/07/14
    Dismissed07/19/13
    Motion to Dismiss06/13/13
    Dismissed05/03/13
    Motion to Dismiss04/08/13

  • Carmichael v. Galbraith (5th Cir.) – Amicus

    • The district court erred in dismissing the complaint, because it adequately alleges a plausible claim of sex discrimination on at least two separate legal theories: same-sex sexual harassment, and gender stereotyping

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 574 F. App'x 28606/19/14
    Brief as Amicus04/01/13

  • Lance v. Kyer (5th Cir.) – Amicus

    • A school district that is deliberately indifferent to student-on-student disability-based harassment is liable for damages
    • The evidence in this case is sufficient for the plaintiffs to survive summary judgment
    • There is sufficient evidence that the harassment Montana suffered was based on his disabilities, that it was sufficiently severe and pervasive to be actionable, and that school officials had sufficient knowledge of this harassment to trigger their obligation to act

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 743 F.3d 98202/28/14
    Brief as Amicus03/18/13

  • Thomas v. St. Martin Parish School Board (5th Cir.) – Amicus

    • The Decree was not a declaration of unitary status and that it did not dismiss the case because it failed to make a "rather precise statement" that the Board achieved unitary status, and support such a statement with detailed factual findings
    • The court issuing the Decree failed to provide for a hearing to ascertain whether the defendants had complied in good faith with the decree since it was entered, and had eliminated the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable
    • The Decree's retention of jurisdiction and issuance of a permanent injunction are inconsistent with a finding of unitary status and case dismissal

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 756 F.3d 38006/24/14
    Brief as Amicus03/13/13

  • Long v. Murray County School District (11th Cir.) – Amicus

    • The district court did not adequately consider Eleventh Circuit precedent and persuasive authority, holding that a school district may be deliberately indifferent to harassment when it knows that its remedial measures have been ineffective and fails to take any further action reasonably calculated to eliminate the harassment

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 522 F. App'x 57606/18/13
    Brief as Amicus09/28/12

  • Fisher v. University of Texas (S. Ct.) - Amicus

    • The narrow-tailoring inquiry under Grutter and Fisher examines whether a university’s consideration of race is tailored to its concretely defined educational objectives
    • The University of Texas has established that its consideration of race is narrowly tailored
    • The United States has a compelling interest in the educational benefits of diversity
    • The University of Texas' use of race in freshman admissions to achieve the educational benefits of diversity is constitutional

     

    DocumentDate 
    Supreme Court Decision, reported at 136 S. Ct. 219806/23/16
    Brief as Amicus11/02/15
    Supreme Court Decision, reported at 133 S. Ct. 241106/24/13
    Brief as Amicus08/13/12

  • Argenyi v. Creighton University (8th Cir.) – Amicus

    • The district court erred in holding that to establish a violation under the statutes, Argenyi needed to show that he would be effectively excluded from the medical school without the assistance of the auxiliary aids and services he requested
    • The district court erred in disregarding Argenyi's statements concerning the effectiveness of the auxiliary aids Creighton provided, and deferring to Creighton's decision not to allow Argenyi to use interpreters in clinics as an "academic" decision

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 703 F.3d 44101/15/13
    Brief as Amicus01/26/12

  • Biediger v. Quinnipiac University (2d Cir.) – Amicus

    • The district court reasonably applied the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights's Title IX regulations in holding that the University's competitive cheerleading squad did not constitute a sport for purposes of Title IX
    • The district court properly applied OCR's 1996 Title IX Clarification to hold that, in the context of Quinnipiac's athletic program, a 38-athlete disparity was sufficient to constitute a Title IX violation

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 691 F.3d 8508/07/12
    Brief as Amicus09/07/11

  • R.K. v. Board of Education of Scott County, et al. (6th Cir.) – Amicus

    • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act require the school district to allow R.K. to attend his neighborhood school unless it is necessary for him to attend a school with a nurse
    • Because R.K. did not seek any special education services and did not make claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, he was not required to exhaust administrative remedies under that statute
    • The district court applied the wrong legal standard and that state regulations governing insulin administration are preempted by federal protections for students with disabilities

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 637 F. App'x 92202/05/16
    Brief as Amicus12/24/14
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 494 F. App'x 58908/16/12
    Brief as Amicus06/07/11

  • Fisher & Mendoza v. Tucson Unified School District (9th Cir.) – Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee

    • Arizona's second motion for reconsideration is to be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard and that the motion was properly denied
    • As Arizona lacks a significantly protectable interest in this case, the outcome of the case did not impair Arizona's ability to protect its interests
    • Arizona's interests were adequately represented
    • The motion was untimely
    • The district court failed to follow Supreme Court precedent governing termination of court oversight of a desegregation decree in reaching its decision to grant unitary status and terminate this case

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 594 F. App’x 91712/15/14
    Brief as Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee11/13/13
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 652 F.3d 113107/19/11
    Brief as Plaintiff-Intervenor04/29/11

  • Zeno v. Pine Plains Central School District (2d Cir.) – Amicus

    • A school district can be found deliberately indifferent to known acts of student-on-student racial harassment under Title VI where it knows that individual disciplinary measures have not prevented persistent racial harassment, and yet fails to implement additional remedial action targeted to ending the harassment

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 702 F.3d 65512/03/12
    Brief as Amicus04/21/11

  • Williams v. Port Huron Area School District (6th Cir.) – Amicus

    • The standard for Title VI racial harassment claims is the deliberate indifference standard employed in Title IX cases
    • The evidence is sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to find that the school district was deliberately indifferent to the harassment from 2003-2006

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 455 F. App'x 61201/09/12
    Brief as Amicus03/09/11

  • Doe v. Lower Merion School District (3d Cir.) – Amicus

    • Strict scrutiny did not apply to the school district's consideration of neighborhood racial demographics in order to promote diversity and avoid racial isolation, as per Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Parents Involved

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 665 F.3d 52412/14/11
    Brief as Amicus02/02/11

  • Payne v. Peninsula School District (9th Cir.) – Amicus

    • Where a plaintiff alleges unconstitutional abuse and seeks only backward-looking remedies, the IDEA’s exhaustion requirements do not apply

     

    DocumentDate 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 653 F.3d 86307/29/11
    Brief as Amicus11/04/10

 

 

Browse Briefs by Category

Access to Justice
Affirmative Action
Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Constitutionality of Federal Statutes
Criminal
Education
Employment Discrimination (Race, National Origin, Sex, and Religion)
Equal Credit Opportunity Act
Equal Protection Clause
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
Housing
Immigration
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Institutionalized Persons
Police Misconduct (Civil Cases)
Religion Cases
Servicemember Cases
Third Party Intervention in Civil Rights Cases
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting
Other

Updated December 3, 2024