125 F.4th 898
8th Cir.2025Background
- L.B., a minor with ADHD and vision impairments, attended Our Lady of Lourdes Parish and School (Lourdes) after receiving a learning evaluation recommending various academic accommodations.
- Lourdes initially accepted the evaluation and provided accommodations through a Learning Plan, improving L.B.'s academic experience.
- After a change in school leadership, the agreed-upon accommodations were no longer implemented, and L.B. began to struggle academically.
- L.B.'s parents attempted to resolve the issue with school officials but were unsuccessful, leading to tensions with the principal and pastor.
- Following a contentious meeting, the family was expelled from Lourdes, after which they homeschooled their children and sued under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging failures to follow federal procedural regulations.
- The district court dismissed the suit for lack of a private right of action to enforce Section 504 regulations, and upon appeal, the Eighth Circuit addressed standing instead of the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does failure to follow Section 504 implementing regulations | Lourdes violated procedural regulations under §504 | No private right of action for regulations | No standing: procedural violations not causally related |
| give rise to a private right of action? | and plaintiffs are entitled to relief | alone | to plaintiffs’ injury; court does not address this issue |
| Did Lourdes' procedural failures cause L.B.’s expulsion/injury? | Lack of procedures led to accommodations breakdown | Expulsion due to threat to principal, not | Not fairly traceable; no causal connection |
| and eventual expulsion | procedural failures | ||
| Would a favorable court order redress plaintiffs’ injuries? | Court ordering compliance and damages would redress | No redressability, as injuries not caused | No redressability; injunctive or declaratory relief wouldn’t |
| family’s harms | by regulatory violations | remedy their claimed injury | |
| Did the complaint allege that L.B. was a qualified individual | L.B. had ADHD and educational needs | No allegation L.B. was a “qualified individual” | No sufficient allegations; regulatory obligations inapplicable |
| with a disability as defined by Section 504? |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (distinguishing statutory violations from concrete injuries for Article III standing)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (plaintiff must show concrete harm, not just statutory violation, for standing)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (sets out the test for Article III standing, including traceability and redressability)