Johnson v. Fliger
24-6008
9th Cir.Jul 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Daymon Johnson, a faculty member of Kern Community College District (KCCD), challenged his employer’s enforcement of certain California regulations requiring support for diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) principles.
- Johnson alleged these provisions compelled him to express support for DEIA, conflicting with his First Amendment rights.
- The district court dismissed Johnson’s first amended complaint for lack of Article III standing and denied his preliminary injunction motion as moot.
- Johnson appealed, arguing standing to challenge the enforcement of specific California Education Code and regulatory provisions by KCCD and related officials.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether Johnson had standing to pursue his claims, and whether the motion for preliminary injunction should proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge Cal. Code Regs. §§ 53602(b), 53605(a),(c) & Cal. Educ. Code § 87732(f) | Johnson intends conduct arguably proscribed by these and faces credible threat of enforcement | Johnson lacks credible threat of enforcement; no explicit threat | Johnson has standing to challenge these specific provisions |
| Standing to challenge other statutes/regulations (incl. §§ 87732 (general), 87735, Policy 3050, DEIA Competencies) | Johnson risks discipline under these for his speech | These are aspirational/fail to directly apply to Johnson | Johnson lacks standing; no credible threat or direct application |
| Standing to sue CCC Chancellor Christian | Chancellor has or may exercise enforcement authority | Chancellor cannot enforce provisions against Johnson and disavows enforcement | Johnson lacks standing; Chancellor cannot enforce against him |
| Preliminary injunction proceedings | District court should decide on motion | -- | Remanded to district court for consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (articulates standing requirements for pre-enforcement First Amendment challenges)
- Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, 220 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2000) (addresses criteria for establishing a concrete plan to violate the law in standing analysis)
- Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012) (sets forth pendent appellate jurisdiction over related issues)
- Int’l Franchise Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 803 F.3d 389 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for denial of preliminary injunction)
- Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Lumber Co., 230 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2000) (appellate courts usually remand to district courts for initial legal analysis)