Court Opinion

ID: 9387185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-15 21:00:23.773495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:12.009899
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1168     Doc: 38          Filed: 04/14/2023   Pg: 1 of 16

                                                PUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 22-1168

        PATTI H. MENDERS, on behalf of herself and her minor child R.M; SCOTT
        MINEO, on behalf of himself and his minor child A.M; JANE DOE #2, on behalf
        of herself and her minor child,

                     Plaintiffs - Appellants,

        and

        JANE DOE #1, on behalf of herself and her three minor children; JANE DOE #3, on
        behalf of herself and her minor child,

                     Plaintiffs,

        v.

        LOUDOUN COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

                    Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:21−cv−00669−AJT−TCB)

        Argued: December 8, 2022                                       Decided: April 14, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Vacated and remanded with instructions by published opinion. Judge Quattlebaum wrote
        the opinion, in which Judge Niemeyer and Judge Agee joined.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1168    Doc: 38      Filed: 04/14/2023   Pg: 2 of 16

        ARGUED: Daniel Robert Suhr, LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER, Chicago, Illinois, for
        Appellants.   Andrew Paul Selman, HANEY PHINYOWATTANACHIP PLLC,
        Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jeffrey D. Jennings, LIBERTY JUSTICE
        CENTER, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellants.           Stacy L. Haney, HANEY
        PHINYOWATTANACHIP PLLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

                                               2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1168      Doc: 38         Filed: 04/14/2023      Pg: 3 of 16

        QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge:

               The Loudoun County Public Schools (the “LCPS”) developed and implemented a

        “Student Equity Ambassador Program” “to amplify the voices of Students of Color and

        those who have experienced or witnessed injustices, marginalization, or discrimination.”

        J.A. 24. Under the program, Student Equity Ambassadors—selected by the LCPS—

        participate in “Share, Speak-up, Speak-out” meetings where they discuss issues of race and

        equity. The program also seeks to document incidents of perceived bias through a “Share,

        Speak Up, Speak Out: Bias Reporting Form.” This electronic form allows students to

        anonymously report incidents of perceived bias for discussion at the Share, Speak-up,

        Speak-out meetings. It also allows students to request that school administrators investigate

        the reported bias incidents.

               In response, the parents of several children who attend the LCPS sued the Loudoun

        County School Board (the “School Board”) on behalf of their minor children, asserting

        Equal Protection and First Amendment claims. They allege that their children are not

        eligible for the Student Equity Ambassador Program because of their race and viewpoint.

        And they assert the reporting system that uses the Share, Speak Up, Speak Out: Bias

        Reporting Form chills their children from exercising their free speech rights.

               The district court granted the School Board’s motion to dismiss the parents’ claims

        under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, concluding that

        the parents failed to allege plausible claims concerning the Student Equity Ambassador

        Program. And the district court concluded that the parents lacked standing to bring First

        Amendment claims over the new bias reporting system. The parents appealed.

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1168        Doc: 38       Filed: 04/14/2023     Pg: 4 of 16

                  The parents lack standing to challenge the Student Equity Ambassador Program.

        Their children never applied to be ambassadors nor even expressed an interest in

        participating in the program. As such, they suffered no injury in fact sufficient to confer

        Article III standing. So, we vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss those claims.

        But the parents plausibly allege that implementing the new reporting system chilled their

        children’s speech to support their First Amendment claims. So, we vacate the district

        court’s order dismissing those claims and remand for those claims to be considered on the

        merits.

                                                     I.

                  As we must, in reviewing an order granting a motion to dismiss, we accept the

        following facts from the amended complaint and the incorporated exhibits as true and draw

        all reasonable inferences from them in favor of the parents. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

        v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 448 (4th Cir. 2011); Annappareddy v. Pascale, 996

        F.3d 120, 127 (4th Cir. 2021).

                                                    A.

                  In June 2019, the School Board engaged the Equity Collaborative, an outside

        consultant, to assess the “campus climate” within the LCPS. J.A. 14. The resulting report

        observed that “[t]here are limited opportunities for Black/African-American and Muslim

        students to convene in a network of social and cultural support.” J.A. 14 (alteration in

        original). So, it recommended the LCPS “[e]stablish student affinity groups at all levels to

        support the social and cultural identities of students of color.” J.A. 14 (alteration in

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1168      Doc: 38           Filed: 04/14/2023    Pg: 5 of 16

        original). Such groups, the report continued, would “serve[] as a network of care for the

        marginalized student populations and establish[] a safe place for students to unpack

        feelings and emotions in times of social or cultural conflict.” J.A. 48.

               About one year later, the LCPS published its “Action Plans to Combat Systemic

        Racism.” J.A. 65. The plan included the Student Equity Ambassador Program. Under the

        program, the LCPS selects two to three students from each middle and high school in

        Loudoun County to be “Student Equity Ambassadors.” Student Equity Ambassadors

        participate in district-wide “Share, Speak-up, Speak-out” meetings where the students

        discuss issues of race and equity.

               Initially, the LCPS limited the Student Equity Ambassador Program to “Students of

        Color.” J.A. 110. But in response to criticism, the LCPS eliminated that requirement. In its

        place, the LCPS explained that “student leaders will be responsible for amplifying the voice

        of Students of Color by engaging in discussions about student stories/experiences

        regarding issues of racism, injustice and inequity.” J.A. 115. Student Equity Ambassadors,

        the LCPS advised, need to be honest, sympathetic, and have the potential for leadership.

        And they must “have a passion for social justice . . . .” J.A. 116. The LCPS publicized that

        applicants for the Student Equity Ambassador Program should “want to be a Voice for

        Social Justice,” be “interested in Amplifying the Student Voice of Color” and strive to

        represent “Peers of Color by sharing their experiences.” J.A. 117. So, despite eliminating

        the requirement that Student Equity Ambassadors be students of color, the program still

        “focus[ed] on race” and “recogniz[ing] students who have been marginalized.” J.A. 116.

                                                      5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1168      Doc: 38         Filed: 04/14/2023     Pg: 6 of 16

               The parents allege that their children do not qualify for the Student Equity

        Ambassador Program as originally conceived or as practically implemented because they

        are not students of color and their views about important public issues “conflict with

        LCPS’s definition of social justice.” J.A. 24. The parents are also concerned that if “their

        students share their views about political or social issues, including those touching on

        [Critical Race Theory], religion, race, human sexuality, and other controversial political

        issues, they will be reported and investigated for ‘bias incidents’” in connection with the

        “Share, Speak Up, Speak Out: Bias Reporting Form.” J.A. 25. That online form allows

        students to anonymously report incidents of perceived bias, which include “Harassment or

        Intimidation,” “Racial Slur,” “Offensive Language, Teasing or Taunting Language/Verbal

        Exchange,” “Exclusion or victim of lack of inclusivity,” “Gender Identity and Expression,”

        “Ability Status,” “Religious Practices,” and “Sexual Orientation.” J.A. 22; J.A. 126. Such

        a report, investigation or public disclosure, they maintain, “could negatively impact their

        students’ standing in the school community and ruin their college or career prospects.” J.A.

        25.

                                                    B.

               The parents, on behalf of their children, sued the School Board under 42

        U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the constitutionality of the Student Equity Ambassador

        Program and the system of reporting bias incidents with the “Share, Speak Up, Speak Out:

        Bias Reporting Form.” In their amended complaint, the parents assert five claims. The first

        three relate to the Student Equity Ambassador Program. The parents allege the program

        violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because it discriminates on

                                                     6
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1168      Doc: 38         Filed: 04/14/2023      Pg: 7 of 16

        the basis of race; the First Amendment because it discriminates on the basis of viewpoint;

        and the Equal Protection Clause because it discriminates on the basis of viewpoint. The

        last two claims relate to the LCPS’s new system for reporting perceived bias through the

        Share, Speak Up, Speak Out: Bias Reporting Form. The parents allege the LCPS’s use of

        the bias reporting form violates the First Amendment by chilling speech through content-

        based speech restrictions and viewpoint discrimination.

               The School Board moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rules of

        Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motion. It first

        addressed the Equal Protection claims. As for the parents’ race-based Equal Protection

        discrimination claim, the district court held that the parents failed to plausibly plead that

        the LCPS enacted the Student Equity Ambassador Program with discriminatory intent or

        that it had a discriminatory impact. With respect to the parents’ Equal Protection viewpoint

        discrimination claim, it determined that the Student Equity Ambassador Program is a non-

        public forum that only needs to be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

        The court then held that the program satisfied this test because the selection criteria for

        participation in the program—which it held did not require any substantive viewpoint—

        were rationally related to the legitimate government purpose of promoting a more

        inclusive, non-discriminatory environment. And the court reasoned that even if the

        program’s requirement for a “passion for social justice” involves a substantive viewpoint,

        our Buxton v. Kurtinitis, 862 F.3d 423 (4th Cir. 2017) decision permits the LCPS to take

        viewpoints expressed by students into account when choosing between candidates in a

        competitive process.

                                                     7
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1168       Doc: 38         Filed: 04/14/2023      Pg: 8 of 16

               The district court then addressed the First Amendment claims about the Student

        Equity Ambassador Program. Dismissing the First Amendment viewpoint discrimination

        claim, the court held the allegations that the Student Equity Ambassadors must have a

        passion for social justice did not plausibly allege the program “imposes a particular

        viewpoint to participate in the program in violation of the First Amendment.” J.A. 143.

        And alternatively, the court stated that even if the program’s selection criteria referenced a

        particular viewpoint, the allegation fails to state a plausible First Amendment violation

        because, again citing Buxton, it is part of a competitive selection process to allocate a

        limited number of slots and because of the “clear pedagogical concerns over which the

        [Student Equity Ambassador] program was adopted.” J.A. 143.

               Last, with respect to the parents’ First Amendment claims regarding the system of

        reporting bias incidents through the new Share, Speak Up, Speak Out: Bias Reporting

        Form, the district court held that the parents lacked standing to bring these claims because

        they did not allege that there have been any disciplinary actions taken as a result of the bias

        incident forms. And the court suggested that any self-censorship on the part of the students

        “would exist separate and apart from the Bias Reporting system.” J.A. 145. The parents

        timely appealed.

                                                      II.

               The parents argue the district court erred in dismissing their Fourteenth Amendment

        equal protection claims and First Amendment free speech claim based on the Student

                                                      8
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1168       Doc: 38          Filed: 04/14/2023      Pg: 9 of 16

        Equity Ambassador Program. But before considering the merits of these arguments, we

        must first determine if the parents have Article III standing to sue in federal court.

               Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to “Cases”

        and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. The limitation of federal court jurisdiction

        to actual cases or controversies is a bedrock principle fundamental to our judiciary’s role

        in our system of government. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818 (1997). “One element of

        the case-or-controversy requirement is that appellees, based on their complaint, must

        establish that they have standing to sue.” Id. To establish standing, a plaintiff must “show

        (i) that he suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent;

        (ii) that the injury was likely caused by the defendant; and (iii) that the injury would likely

        be redressed by judicial relief.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2203 (2021)

        (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–561 (1992)). In other words, to

        satisfy Article III, a plaintiff must have a sufficient “personal stake” in the alleged dispute

        and have an alleged injury that is particularized as to him. Raines, 521 U.S. at 818 (internal

        quotation marks and citation omitted). Under Article III:

               [F]ederal courts do not adjudicate hypothetical or abstract disputes. Federal
               courts do not possess a roving commission to publicly opine on every legal
               question. Federal courts do not exercise general legal oversight of the
               Legislative and Executive Branches, or of private entities. And federal courts
               do not issue advisory opinions.

        Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. at 2203. We may only resolve real controversies with real impact on

        real people. Id.

                                                       9
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1168      Doc: 38         Filed: 04/14/2023     Pg: 10 of 16

               In fairness, the esoteric nature of discussions about standing might lead one to

        conclude the topic is best reserved for law school faculty lounges. But we should not

        overlook the importance of this principle. The requirement of standing furthers the

        separation of powers between the three branches of our government. Under the

        Constitution, a party’s grievance without an injury in fact does not confer standing and

        “does not state an Article III case or controversy.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 574. As a result,

        federal courts have no power to address them.

               A recent Supreme Court decision illustrates this point. In Carney v. Adams, 141 S.

        Ct. 493 (2020), a Delaware lawyer challenged a Delaware state constitutional provision

        that required judicial appointments to reflect a partisan balance under the First

        Amendment’s freedom of association clause. Carney, 141 S.Ct. at 496. But the lawyer had

        not previously applied to become a judge. The Supreme Court held that the lawyer did not

        have standing to challenge Delaware’s party-membership requirement for the judiciary

        because he did not show that he was likely to apply to become a judge if he was not barred

        from doing so because of the party-membership requirement. Id. at 500. Absent that, the

        Court concluded he was not “able and ready” to apply. Id. at 501. Instead, he suggested

        merely “an abstract, generalized grievance, not an actual desire to become a judge.” Id;

        see also Ne. Fla. Chapter of the Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville,

        508 U.S. 656, 666 (1993) (holding contractors suing over the set-aside of certain state

        contracts based on race had standing to advance an equal protection claim because they

        were “able and ready” to bid on the contracts).

                                                    10
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1168         Doc: 38        Filed: 04/14/2023    Pg: 11 of 16

                  Much, like the lawyer in Carney, the parents here have not alleged facts that show

        their children were “able and ready” to participate in the Student Equity Ambassador

        Program. Despite the parents’ objections to the program, they do not allege their children

        applied for or even wanted to be a Student Equity Ambassador. They certainly do not allege

        that any of their children were prevented from participating in the program. What’s more,

        the parents do not allege they sought or wanted a separate program more aligned with their

        alleged viewpoints. So, even accepting the parents’ allegations that the program erects a

        racially- or viewpoint-discriminatory barrier as true, they have not alleged an injury-in-

        fact. 1

                  Instead, the parents’ allegations sound much more like general disagreements with

        the School Board’s implementation of the Student Equity Ambassador Program. The

        program, they insist, is part of a concerted effort to indoctrinate LCPS children with a

        certain viewpoint. But whether that is or is not a legitimate concern, it is a concern about

        policy. And concerns about policy should be made to policymakers, not judges.

                 True, the First Amendment claim challenging the program in this case is not
                  1

        exactly the same as the one in Carney. Carney involved a First Amendment freedom of
        association claim whereas the parents maintain that the Student Equity Ambassador
        Program violates the First Amendment because it discriminates on the basis of viewpoint.
        But that distinction makes no difference here because, in their pleadings, the parents
        alleged that the injury or harm caused to their children by the Student Equity Ambassador
        Program’s viewpoint discrimination was that it disqualified their children from being
        ambassadors. In that claim, they allege that the First Amendment is almost an Equal
        Protection clause for ideas. We are not aware of any authority finding standing for such a
        challenge without allegations that the plaintiffs were “able and ready” to participate.

                                                      11
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1168      Doc: 38          Filed: 04/14/2023     Pg: 12 of 16

               Thus, we hold that the parents fail to establish an Article III injury. As a result, we

        lack jurisdiction to reach the question of whether the parents state a claim for violation of

        the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause and for violation of the First

        Amendment’s free speech clause as to the Student Equity Ambassador Program.

        Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment in favor of the School Board and

        remand for the district court to dismiss the action without prejudice. S. Walk at Broadlands

        Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir.

        2013) (“A dismissal for lack of standing . . . must be one without prejudice, because a court

        that lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on the merits.”).

                                                     III.

               Last, the parents assert two claims based on the Share, Speak Up, Speak Out: Bias

        Reporting Form. According to the parents, the bias reporting form constitutes a system that

        violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by chilling their children’s speech through

        content-based restrictions and through viewpoint discrimination. Like the district court, we

        consider these causes of action together.

               As noted above, the district court dismissed these claims for lack of standing. It

        explained that the parents failed to allege that there have been any disciplinary incidents

        launched as a result of the reporting form or even bias incidents recommended for

        investigation. 2

               2
                 Further, the district court found that the parents did not allege that this new
        reporting system presented any greater risk of discipline than the LCPS’s existing system.
                                                     12
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1168       Doc: 38         Filed: 04/14/2023      Pg: 13 of 16

               Establishing standing in First Amendment claims alleging the chilling of free

        speech, however, is not that demanding. In Secretary of State of Maryland v. Joseph H.

        Munson Co., Inc., 467 U.S. 947 (1984), the Supreme Court recognized the “danger of

        chilling free speech,” explaining there is a possibility that, rather than risk punishment for

        conduct in challenging the statute, one “will refrain from engaging further in the protected

        activity.” Id. at 956. Following that guidance, we have clarified that in “First Amendment

        cases, the injury-in-fact element is commonly satisfied by a sufficient showing of ‘self-

        censorship, which occurs when a claimant is chilled from exercising h[is] right to free

        expression.’” Cooksey v. Futrell, 721 F.3d 226, 235 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal citation

        omitted).

               But not just any alleged chilling of speech will do. A plaintiff must allege that he or

        she has “experienced a non-speculative and objectively reasonable chilling effect” on

        speech. Id. at 236 (noting that a claimant need not show he ceased activities altogether to

        show an injury in fact). There are two ways plaintiffs can establish standing to pursue a

        First Amendment claim. “First, they may show that they intend to engage in conduct at

        least arguably protected by the First Amendment but also proscribed by the policy they

        wish to challenge, and that there is a ‘credible threat’ that the policy will be enforced

        against them when they do so.” Abbott v. Pastides, 900 F.3d 160, 176 (4th Cir. 2018)

        (citation omitted). Second, they may make a sufficient showing of self-censorship,

        establishing a chilling effect on their free expression that is objectively reasonable. Id.

               With these principles in mind, we review the parents’ allegations. The parents first

        discuss the contents of the form and the process for reporting a bias incident. And as

                                                      13
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1168       Doc: 38         Filed: 04/14/2023      Pg: 14 of 16

        described above, the parents allege Student Equity Ambassadors defined microaggressions

        as “‘everyday, subtle, intentional — and often unintentional — interactions or behaviors

        that communicate some sort of bias toward historically marginalized groups.’” J.A. 23.

        They allege that the Student Equity Ambassadors cited denials of racial reality and a

        framework of “colorblindness” that sees people as individuals rather than members of a

        race as examples of microaggressions. J.A. 23. Then the parents address the reasons the

        bias reports have chilled their children’s speech. They allege that their children “believe

        that everyone is equal and that we should strive for a color blind society.” J.A. 24. The

        parents also allege that the children “wish to speak out on [Critical Race Theory], race, and

        gender identity, and other controversial political issues within the LCPS community,” but

        that their views are not shared with others in the community. J.A. 25. As a result, the parents

        allege they “are concerned that if their students share their views about political or social

        issues, including those touching on [Critical Race Theory], religion, race, human sexuality,

        and other controversial political issues, they will be reported and investigated for ‘bias

        incidents.’” J.A. 25.

               We must accept these allegations, and all reasonable inferences from them, as true.

        And we must construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the parents. Applying

        that standard, these allegations are sufficient to show that the bias reporting system caused

        the parents’ children to experience a non-speculative and objectively reasonable chilling

        effect on their speech. The parents allege that their children desired to speak about specific

        issues—“political or social issues, including those touching on [Critical Race Theory],

        religion, race, human sexuality, and other controversial political issues.” J.A. 25. They

                                                      14
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1168      Doc: 38         Filed: 04/14/2023      Pg: 15 of 16

        allege their children’s views plausibly fell within what Student Equity Ambassadors in

        presentations about the program defined as microaggressions. And the parents allege that

        their children refrained from speaking on these issues because they feared that, if they did,

        fellow LCPS students would accuse them of bias and the LCPS would investigate the

        reports. Finally, they allege any such report, investigation or public disclosure could harm

        their standing in the school community and ruin their college or career prospects.

               These allegations are sufficient to meet our standing requirements. Thus, we vacate

        the district court’s dismissal of the parents’ claims that the reporting system the LCPS

        implemented using the Share, Speak Up, Speak Out: Bias Reporting Form violates the First

        and Fourteenth Amendments by chilling their children’s speech through content-based

        restrictions and through viewpoint discrimination. Without expressing a view on the merits,

        we remand for the consideration of these claims on the merits and for further action

        consistent with this opinion.

                                                    IV.

               Federal courts are not empowered by the Constitution to resolve policy disputes.

        Article III of the Constitution only confers jurisdiction to resolve cases and controversies.

        And for there to be a case or controversy, the party asserting a claim in federal court must

        have suffered an injury in fact. The parents’ claims challenging the Student Equity

        Ambassador Program do not allege an injury in fact. Thus, we vacate the district court and

        remand with instructions to dismiss those claims without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

        But the parents have sufficiently alleged a particularized, concrete injury required for

                                                     15
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1168     Doc: 38         Filed: 04/14/2023    Pg: 16 of 16

        standing to challenge the reporting system that includes the perceived bias forms.

        Accordingly, we vacate and remand for the district court to consider the parents’ First

        Amendment claims based on the bias reporting system in the first instance.

                                          VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

                                                   16