C.F. Ex Rel Farnan v. Capistrano Unified School District
654 F.3d 975
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Farnan, a 15-year-old sophomore, was enrolled in Corbett's AP European History class fall 2007.
- Corbett is a long-tenured Capistrano teacher who frequently discusses religion; Farnan is Christian and creationist.
- Farnan was offended by Corbett's class remarks and withdrew, then sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging Establishment Clause violation.
- AP Euro course covers religion-related topics per College Board; course description emphasizes context for understanding contemporary society.
- District court actions: summary-judgment rulings; intervenors sought qualified immunity for Corbett; later amendments allowed Corbett to plead qualified immunity.
- Cross-appeals followed, with Farnan challenging Establishment Clause rulings and Corbett's qualified immunity; issue framed around whether Corbett’s statements violated the Establishment Clause and whether the right was clearly established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Corbett is entitled to qualified immunity. | Farnan contends statements violated Establishment Clause. | Corbett asserts no clearly established right and qualified immunity applies. | Corbett entitled to qualified immunity; no clearly established precedent |
| Whether any Establishment Clause violation is clearly established by the Peloza comment. | Peloza comment violated Establishment Clause. | No clearly established rule; defense warrants immunity. | Not clearly established; immunity applies and merits not decided on that point |
| Whether Farnan's declaratory relief claim is moot given graduation. | Claim should not be mooted; ongoing harm to rights. | Graduation moots declaratory relief but damages remain viable. | Declaratory relief moot; damages claim remains viable |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (clarifies sequencing in qualified immunity analysis; not required to decide right if not clearly established)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step test for qualified immunity (now modified by Pearson))
- Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) (government teaching cannot be tailored to a religious doctrine; neutrality in education)
- Am. Family Ass'n v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 277 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2002) (establishment clause includes hostility toward religion as a constraint)
- Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist., 324 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (no clearly established right; context matters in Establishment Clause)
- al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (limits on defining clearly established law at high generality)
- Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967) (protects robust exchange of ideas in education)
- DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974) (capable of repetition; settings for mootness analysis)