Opinion ID: 4568253
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mootness of Challenge to Restroom Policy

Text: First, the Board contends that we lack jurisdiction over Grimm’s challenges to the restroom policy because those claims are mooted by his own amendments to the complaint, which removed his request for injunctive relief and compensatory damages. As characterized by the Board, by only seeking nominal damages and declaratory relief as to the restroom policy, “Grimm seeks nothing more than a judicial stamp of approval, which is not a proper remedy.” Reply Br. 1. Finding a live controversy, we reject this argument. Our jurisdiction is restricted by Article III of the Constitution to “Cases” and “Controversies.” See Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 171 (2013). A case becomes moot and jurisdiction is lost if, at any time during federal judicial proceedings, “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’” See id. at 172 (quoting Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013)). But the bar for maintaining a legally cognizable claim is not high: “As long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot.” See id. (quoting Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012)). Naturally, then, plausible claims for damages defeat mootness challenges. See Mission Prod. Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 1652 (2019) (“If there is any chance of money changing hands, [the] suit remains live.”); see also 13C Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3533.3 (3d ed. April 2020 Update) (hereinafter “Wright & Miller”). That is true even when the claim is for nominal damages. See Wright & Miller § 3533.3, n.47 (collecting cases); see also N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. City of 27 New York, 140 S. Ct. 1525, 1536 (2020) (Alito, J., dissenting) (same). Under this Circuit’s precedent, “even if a plaintiff’s injunctive relief claim has been mooted, the action is not moot if the plaintiff may be ‘entitled to at least nominal damages.’” Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Covenant Media of S.C., LLC v. City of N. Charleston, 493 F.3d 421, 429 n.4 (4th Cir. 2007)). And the implications are particularly important in the civil rights context, because such rights are often vindicated through nominal damages. See N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc., 140 S. Ct. at 1535 (Alito, J., dissenting) (citing Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 574 (1986) (plurality opinion)); see also Riverside, 477 U.S. at 574 (plurality opinion) (“Regardless of the form of relief he actually obtains, a successful civil rights plaintiff often secures important social benefits that are not reflected in nominal or relatively small damages awards.”). 6 Nevertheless, the Board analogizes to an Eleventh Circuit en banc decision, Flanigan’s Enterprises, Inc. of Georgia v. City of Sandy Springs, 868 F.3d 1248, 1263 (11th Cir. 2017). But Flanigan’s Enterprises is unpersuasive because it is not on point. In Flanigan’s Enterprises, the Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiff-appellants’ request for declaratory and injunctive relief from a city ordinance became moot when the City repealed that ordinance “unambiguously and unanimously, in open session,” with 6 Additionally, winning nominal damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 allows for a recovery of attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, thereby allowing plaintiffs with insufficient funds to hire an attorney at market rate, and with little prospect of a great recovery, to be matched with a civil rights attorney. See generally Riverside, 477 U.S. at 576–80 (plurality opinion) (discussing the importance of the § 1988 framework for vindicating civil rights). Holding that claims for nominal damages are moot would undermine this framework by discouraging attorneys from taking cases such as Grimm’s. 28 “persuasive reasons for doing so.” 868 F.3d at 1263. The City had “expressly, repeatedly, and publicly disavowed any intent to reenact [the challenged] provision,” which it had “never enforced in the first place.” Id. (emphasis added). The Eleventh Circuit then turned to the appellants’ “lone” remaining request, nominal damages. It explained that, in some situations, nominal damages have a “practical effect” or are the “appropriate remedy”; in others, nominal damages “would serve no purpose other than to affix a judicial seal of approval to an outcome that has already been realized.” Id. at 1264. Flanigan’s Enterprises was “squarely of that last variety,” the court said, because the appellants had “already won.” Id. Flanigan’s Enterprises is distinct at every turn. Whereas the ordinance at issue in that case had never been enforced, and had been publicly retracted, here the Board unquestionably applied its policy against Grimm. To this day, the Board and Grimm “vigorously contest” the legality of the bathroom policy as applied to Grimm. See Chafin, 133 S. Ct. at 1024 (holding that a case was not moot when the parties continued to “vigorously contest the question of where their daughter w[ould] be raised”). Unlike the Eleventh Circuit in Flanigan’s Enterprise, we are presented with a “live controversy,” Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 48 (1969), that is “likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision,” Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). As seen by this drawnout litigation, it will only be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. 29 B. Administrative Exhaustion of School Records Decision Second, the Board asserts that Grimm was required to exhaust his administrative remedies by requesting a hearing after he learned of the Board’s final decision. “Where relief is available from an administrative agency, the plaintiff is ordinarily required to pursue that avenue of redress before proceeding to the courts; and until that recourse is exhausted, suit is premature and must be dismissed.” Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258, 269 (1993). The Board is correct that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, under which Grimm requested that his records be amended, provides for a hearing. See 34 C.F.R. § 99.20(c) (“If the educational agency or institution decides not to amend the record as requested, it shall inform the parent or eligible student of its decision and of his or her right to a hearing under § 99.21.”). When read together with broader agency principles, the Board believes that FERPA’s regulatory hearing provision demands exhaustion. In sharp contrast to a statute like the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), which demands “proper exhaustion,” see Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006), the FERPA says nothing about exhausting administrative remedies. Cf. PLRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (“No action shall be brought . . . until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”). Facing Congressional silence, rather than an express exhaustion provision, “sound judicial discretion governs.” McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144 (1992), superseded on other grounds by statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Even when considering a different education statute with an explicit exhaustion requirement, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l), 30 the Supreme Court held that its exhaustion requirement is not implicated when the gravamen of the suit is disability discrimination in violation of other federal laws, rather than a more direct violation of the IDEA itself. See Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 137 S. Ct. 743, 755 (2017). And here, the “gravamen” of Grimm’s suit is discrimination, rather than technical violations of the FERPA. See Fry, 137 S. Ct. at 755. 7 Grimm is not complaining that the Board failed to follow the FERPA, but rather that it acted in a discriminatory manner when it refused to amend his records. We may ask ourselves what benefit a hearing could have provided Grimm, when the Board continues to deny his request in the face of both a court order stating that his sex is male and a declaration from the State Registrar affirming the validity of his new birth certificate. If the FERPA ever implicitly demands such complete exhaustion, it does not do so in a discrimination case such as this one.