Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01942/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01942-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1942

___________

Straights and Gays for Equality * 

(SAGE); N.R. by Her Next Friend * 

and Parent S.R.; H.W. by Her Next * 

Friend and Parent M.W., * 

* 

Appellees, * Appeal from the United States 

* District Court for the 

v. * District of Minnesota. 

* 

Osseo Area Schools - District No. 279; * 

Larry A. McGee, Member & * 

Chairperson of the School Board of * 

Osseo Schools - District 279, in his * 

individual and official capacities; * 

Dean G. Henke, Member & * 

Vice Chairperson of the School * 

Board of Osseo Area Schools - * 

District 279, in his individual and * 

official capacities; John L. Nelson, * 

Member & Clerk of the School * 

Board of Osseo Area Schools - * 

District 279, in his individual and * 

official capacities; Kim Green, * 

Member & Treasurer of the School * 

Board of Osseo Area Schools - * 

District 279, in her individual and * 

official capacities; Linda J. Etim, * 

Member & Director of the School * 

Board of Osseo Area Schools - * 

District 279, in her individual and * 

official capacities; Judith G. Peterzen, * 

Member & Director of the School * 

Appellate Case: 06-1942 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2006 Entry ID: 3262027
1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

-2-

Board of Osseo Area Schools - * 

District 279, in her individual and * 

official capacities; John O'Sulllivan, Jr., * 

Superintendent of Osseo Area Schools - * 

District 279, in his individual and * 

official capacities; Wendy Loberg, * 

Principal of Maple Grove Senior * 

High School, in her individual and * 

official capacities; Dr. James L. Smith, * 

former Interim Superintendent of * 

Osseo Area Schools - District 279, * 

in his individual capacity; Maple * 

Grove Senior High School, *

* 

Appellants. *

___________

Submitted: October 16, 2006

Filed: December 22, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

The Osseo Area School District ("School District"), Maple Grove Senior High

School ("MGSH"), and various school board members and school staff (collectively

referred to as "appellants") appeal from an order of the district court granting the

Straights and Gays for Equality ("SAGE"), N.R., and H.W.'s (collectively referred to

as"appellees") motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court1

 granted

appellees' motion for a preliminary injunction on their Equal Access Act (EAA) claim

and ordered appellants to grant SAGE the same access for meetings, avenues of

Appellate Case: 06-1942 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2006 Entry ID: 3262027
2

N.R. and H.W. graduated from MGSH in spring 2006. 

3

Other groups classified as "curricular" are: Student Government, which

includes the Crimson Cabinet, Crimson Council, Diversity Council, Service Council,

and Spirit Council; Asian Culture Leadership Group; Black Allies; Native American

Group; Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transgender, Questioning and Allies; Students

Against Destructive Decisions; National Honor Society; Dance Team; gymnastics;

and track and field. 

-3-

communication, and other miscellaneous rights afforded to groups referred to as

"curricular." We affirm. 

I. Background

SAGE, an unincorporated association of students enrolled at MGSH, was

formed to "promote tolerance and respect for [MGSH] students and faculty through

education and activities relevant to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender ("GLBT")

individuals and their allies." N.R. and H.W. are students at MGSH and members of

SAGE.2

MGSH, a high school within the School District, recognizes approximately 60

student groups, including SAGE. MGSH classifies student groups as either

"curricular" or "noncurricular" under the Student Group Framework ("Framework").

The Framework defines "curricular" groups as those "[r]elated to the school's

curriculum" and sponsored by the school. Curricular groups are allowed to

"communicate via PA [public address system], Yearbook, scrolling screen" and "use

other avenues of communication." They may also participate in "[f]undraising or field

trips at principal [sic] discretion." Groups classified as "curricular" include, inter alia,

cheerleading and synchronized swimming.3

 The Framework defines "noncurricular groups" as those "[n]ot related to the

school's curriculum" and not sponsored by the school. The school limits noncurricular

groups's communication avenues. They may only announce meetings by placing

Appellate Case: 06-1942 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/22/2006 Entry ID: 3262027
-4-

posters on a community bulletin board and outside their meeting places. They are

prohibited from making announcements on the PA, in the yearbook, on the scrolling

screen, or by other avenues of communication. They also may not fundraise or take

field trips. The Framework classifies nine groups as "noncurricular," including SAGE.

Appellees filed suit against appellants seeking a preliminary injunction under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Appellees contended that appellants were violating the EAA by

affording certain noncurricular groups designated as curricular student groups, such

as cheerleading and synchronized swimming, with greater access to school facilities

and communication options than noncurricular groups such as SAGE. 

The district court granted appellees' motion for a preliminary injunction,

determining that (1) appellees were likely to prevail in their argument that, like SAGE,

cheerleading and synchronized swimming are noncurriculum related groups but

afforded greater rights than SAGE; (2) appellees were entitled to a presumption of

irreparable harm; (3) the balance of harm favors granting injunctive relief; and (4) the

public interest will be served by enforcing appellees' rights under the EAA. 

II. Discussion

On appeal, appellants argue that the district court abused its discretion in

issuing the preliminary injunction because the district court (1) failed to consider the

physical education curriculum adopted by the school board in deciding that appellees

were likely to succeed on the merits of their EAA claim and (2) erroneously found that

appellees would suffer irreparable harm because appellees are not foreclosed from all

avenues of communication. 

On appeal from a district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, we review

the district court's legal conclusions de novo and its ultimate determination to issue

the injunction for an abuse of discretion. McCreary County v. ACLU, ___U.S.___, 125

S. Ct. 2722, 2737 (2005). 

Appellate Case: 06-1942 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/22/2006 Entry ID: 3262027
-5-

In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the district court

considers (1) the likelihood that the movant will succeed on the merits; (2) the threat

of irreparable harm to the movant; (3) the balance between the harm to the movant and

the harm to the other party; and (4) the public interest. Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L.

Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981). The principal factors at issue in the

present case are the likelihood of appellees' success on the merits and the threat of

irreparable harm to appellees.

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits on the EAA Claim

The EAA prohibits public secondary schools with a "limited open forum" from

discriminating against students desiring to hold meetings on the basis of political,

religious, philosophical, or other content of the speech. Bd. of Educ. of the Westside

Cmty. Sch. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 235 (1990) (citing 20 U.S.C. §§ 4071(a), (b)).

A public secondary school creates a "limited open forum" whenever it "'grants an

offering to or opportunity for one or more noncurriculum related student groups to

meet on school premises during noninstructional time.'" Id. (quoting 20 U.S.C. §

4071(b)). Thus, a school's obligations under the EAA are "triggered" even if the

school only permits one noncurriculum group to meet. Once triggered the EAA

forbids a school from prohibiting other groups, based on the content of their speech,

from having "equal access" to meet on school premises. Id. at 236. 

A "curriculum related student group" is one that

 directly relates to a school's curriculum if the subject matter of the group

is actually taught, or will soon be taught, in a regularly offered course;

if the subject matter of the group concerns the body of courses as a

whole; if participation in the group is required for a particular course; or

if participation in the group results in academic credit.

Id. at 239–40. The circle of groups considered "curriculum related" has a relatively

small circumference and does not include "anything remotely related to abstract

Appellate Case: 06-1942 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/22/2006 Entry ID: 3262027
-6-

educational goals"; instead, the Court limited the definition of "curriculum related

student group" to support "Congress's intent to provide a low threshold for triggering

the Act's requirements." Id. at 244, 240.

For example, a French club is directly related to the school's curriculum if the

school teaches French in a regularly offered course or plans to teach French in the

foreseeable future. Id. at 240. Likewise, a student government organization is directly

related to the curriculum if it addresses matters relating to the body of courses offered

by the school. Id. Also, both band and choir directly relate to the school's curriculum

if they are offered as part of the school's regular curriculum. Id. at 246. 

In contrast, although the EAA does not define "noncurriculum related student

group," the Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase broadly to mean "any student

group that does not directly relate to the body of courses offered by the school." Id.

at 239 (emphasis in original)."Whether a specific student group is a 'noncurriculum

related student group' will [ ] depend on a particular school's curriculum, but such

determinations [are] subject to factual findings well within the competence of trial

courts to make." Id. at 240. Additionally, courts must look to the school's "actual

practice rather than its stated policy" in determining whether a student group is

noncurriculum related. Id. at 246. 

For example, a scuba-diving group is not directly related to the school

curriculum, even if swimming is taught as a physical education class, when scuba

diving is not taught in any regularly offered course at the school and does not result

in academic credit. Id. at 245. Also, a chess club is a "noncurriculum related group"

when no class requires participation in the club and participation in the group does not

result in extra credit for a class. Id. Finally, a student service organization that helps

to enhance students' civic responsibilities to the community is not directly related to

the curriculum where the subject matter of the group is not taught in a class. Pope v.

E. Brunswick Bd. of Educ., 12 F.3d 1244, 1253 (3d Cir. 1993) ("Here, the relevant

Appellate Case: 06-1942 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/22/2006 Entry ID: 3262027
4

Appellants have not alleged that SAGE's meetings could "materially and

substantially interfere with the orderly conduct of educational activities within the

school" or interfere with MGSH's ability to maintain order and discipline at the

school. Mergens, 496 U.S. at 241 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Therefore,

our analysis is restricted to the issue of whether SAGE has equal access to the same

avenues of communication as other noncurriculum related groups. 

-7-

subject matter of one unit of Mr. Koenigsberg's History course is poverty and

homelessness. The subject matter of the Key Club is not poverty and homelessness,

but community-related service and fund-raising activities. The history course and the

Key Club accordingly have different subject matter.") (emphasis in original). 

Here, MGSH does not prohibit SAGE from meeting at the school or utilizing

some avenues of communication; however, the issue is not whether SAGE has access

to some avenues of communication but whether it has equal access to the same

avenues of communication as other noncurriculum related groups. We hold that it

does not.4

First, no regularly offered course at MGSH teaches or will teach the subject

matter of cheerleading or synchronized swimming. With regard to cheerleading, the

"subject matter" of cheerleading is dance, gymnastics, jumps, and stunts, which are

performed for the purpose of creating team spirit at athletic contests. While the MGSH

Registration Handbook does list "Body Control" as a "theme" for its physical

education classes—which includes dance, gymnastics, and tumbling—none of the

offered courses listed in the Handbook, as in Pope, actually teach all of the subject

matter performed in cheerleading. Likewise, although synchronized swimming

involves both swimming and gymnastics, which are listed under the "Body Control"

theme and "Fitness" theme in the Handbook, it is not taught in a regularly offered

course at MGSH. 

Appellate Case: 06-1942 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/22/2006 Entry ID: 3262027
-8-

Second, cheerleading and synchronized swimming do not concern the body of

courses as a whole. Unlike a student government organization, neither the

cheerleading squad nor the synchronized swimming team address concerns or

formulate proposals relating to the body of courses as a whole at MGSH. 

Finally, participation in cheerleading or synchronized swimming does not result

in academic credit and is not required for a particular course.

Because cheerleading and synchronized swimming, like SAGE, are

noncurriculum related groups, SAGE is entitled to the same avenues of

communication as those groups. Our conclusion that SAGE is likely to prevail on the

merits of its EAA claim, however, does not mean that MGSH "can never close a

limited open forum once such a forum has been created." Pope, 12 F.3d at 1254.

MGSH is "free to wipe out all of its noncurriculum related student groups and totally

close its forum." Id. Furthermore, our holding does not prevent MGSH from

legitimately categorizing cheerleading, synchronized swimming, and any other

athletic groups as "curriculum related" by granting physical education academic credit

to students who participate in such groups.

B. Irreparable Harm

SAGE is also entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm. The EAA protects

free speech rights and expressive liberties. Hsu v. Roslyn Union Free Sch. Dist. No.

3, 85 F.3d 839, 872 (2d Cir. 1996). "'[T]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for

even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.'" Id.

(quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)). "[T]he same presumption of

irreparable harm arises in the case of violations of the Equal Access Act because it

protects 'expressive liberties.'" Colin v. Orange Unified Sch. Dist., 83 F. Supp. 2d

1135, 1149 (C.D. Cal. 2000); see also Boyd County High Sch. Gay Straight Alliance

v. Bd. of Educ. of Boyd County, 258 F. Supp. 2d 667, 692 (E.D. Ky. 2003) ("This

Appellate Case: 06-1942 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/22/2006 Entry ID: 3262027
-9-

same presumption of irreparable harm has been applied in cases of violations of the

Equal Access Act because it protects 'expressive liberties.'"). 

Here, although MGSH has afforded students the opportunity to hold SAGE

meetings in school classrooms and place posters on a community bulletin board and

outside the meeting place, they have not, like student members of cheerleading and

synchronized swimming, been allowed to communicate via the PA, yearbook, and

scrolling screen. Additionally, the students have been prohibited from holding

fundraising events or having field trips. Therefore, the student members of SAGE are

entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm, as they will not be able to exercise their

rights absent a preliminary injunction. 

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1942 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/22/2006 Entry ID: 3262027