Baker v. USD 229 Blue Valley, 979 F.3d 866

Background

Plaintiff Terri Baker challenges Kansas school and child-care vaccination requirements and the state/local religious-exemption regime on behalf of herself and her unvaccinated son, S.F.B.
Before the 2018–2019 school year the Bakers submitted a parental-letter religious-exemption; the Blue Valley USD granted an exemption though the letter did not expressly state S.F.B. was an adherent of a religious denomination as specified in Kan. Stat. § 72-6262(b)(2).
Baker alleges the District misapplied Kansas law in granting the exemption, fears the District may revoke it, and also asserts she is inhibited from exercising future “options” (home schooling/non‑accredited private school, school programs, licensed child care) because she would be denied religious exemptions there.
The District and Kansas officials moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing; the district court dismissed without prejudice for failure to allege an injury in fact.
The district and state submitted declarations (District and KDHE officials) and a Kansas Attorney General opinion indicating the Bakers’ statement would be treated as sufficient; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding Baker failed to show a concrete, imminent, non‑speculative injury.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Baker has standing based on a threatened revocation of S.F.B.’s granted school religious exemption	Baker: District misapplied Kansas law in granting the exemption; therefore there is a credible risk the exemption will be revoked and that threat is an injury in fact	Appellees: District already granted the exemption, officials have disavowed changing course, and evidence (declarations, AG opinion) shows no imminent enforcement risk	Held: No standing — speculative fear of future revocation is not a concrete or imminent injury
Whether Baker has standing from her asserted desire to pursue alternative “options” (home school, non‑accredited private school, school programs, child care)	Baker: She would like those options but cannot because Kansas law would prevent obtaining exemptions there	Appellees: Baker alleges only indefinite “some day” intentions; KDHE/AG guidance indicates similar statements would be accepted for child care/home school	Held: No standing — mere “some day” intentions lack concrete plans and are not imminent injury
Whether opportunity/equal‑protection or Establishment‑Clause doctrines relax standing requirements here	Baker: Argues unequal treatment/‘opportunity injury’ and cites Establishment‑Clause standing precedents	Appellees: Argument was not preserved below and Baker still fails to allege a concrete injury	Held: No standing — claims forfeited or inadequately pled and no personal, concrete injury alleged

Key Cases Cited

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (standing requires concrete and particularized injury)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (pre‑enforcement standing needs a credible, imminent threat)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (future injury must be certainly impending or present substantial risk)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (injury must be actual or imminent; ‘‘some day’’ intentions insufficient)
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (concrete plans required for future‑conduct injury)
Winsness v. Yocom, 433 F.3d 727 (mere statute on the books without enforcement does not create standing)
Kansas Natural Resource Coal. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 971 F.3d 1222 (lack of confidence in a regulation does not establish imminent harm)
Mink v. Suthers, 482 F.3d 1244 (official assurances can defeat standing)
Consumer Data Indus. Ass’n v. King, 678 F.3d 898 (pre‑enforcement standing requires credible threat of enforcement)
Cressman v. Thompson, 798 F.3d 938 (pre‑enforcement case law requires credible threat of prosecution)
Babbitt v. United Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289 (pre‑enforcement standing principles)
Virginia v. American Booksellers Ass’n, 484 U.S. 383 (credible threat standard for pre‑enforcement suits)
Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464 (psychological objection to governmental conduct is insufficient for standing)
Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111 (discusses Establishment Clause standing principles)