Lafferty v. Sch. Bd. of Fairfax Cnty.
798 S.E.2d 164
| Va. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs: Andrea Lafferty (Fairfax County resident/taxpayer) and John and Jane Doe (parents) and their minor son Jack Doe (Fairfax County public high‑school student) sued the Fairfax County School Board seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Board amended its non‑discrimination policy to add “sexual orientation” (Nov. 2014) and later “gender identity” and “gender expression” (May 2015); the handbook also added these as bases for student discipline.
- Jack alleged generalized distress and fear that (a) he might be disciplined for ambiguous speech or conduct, and (b) transgender students might use restrooms/locker rooms, invading his privacy and impairing his education.
- Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Board acted ultra vires and injunctive relief to block the policy changes.
- The Board moved to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing the Declaratory Judgment Act does not create new substantive rights and that statutory review under Va. Code § 22.1‑87 (aggrieved parties) is the appropriate remedy.
- The circuit court dismissed for lack of standing (finding no justiciable controversy and rejecting taxpayer standing); the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Individual standing of Jack Doe to bring declaratory judgment (through parents) | Jack’s alleged distress and fear of discipline from the ambiguous policy create an actual controversy and injury in fact. | Jack’s claims are speculative; no present or specific injury alleged and statutory remedy exists for an aggrieved party under § 22.1‑87. | Dismissed — no standing: generalized fear/distress is speculative and insufficient to create a justiciable controversy. |
| Taxpayer standing of Lafferty and the Does individually | As county taxpayers/residents, they may challenge the Board’s action; alleged costs of defending policy support taxpayer interest. | Taxpayer standing in Virginia requires a direct, immediate connection to local expenditures; complaint alleges no specific governmental expenditure authorized by the policy. | Dismissed — no taxpayer standing: plaintiffs alleged only speculative or generalized fiscal impact, not a direct expenditure link. |
| Dismissal without leave to amend | Plaintiffs argued trial court should have allowed amendment before dismissal. | Defendants did not oppose dismissal; plaintiffs failed to identify how amendment would cure lack of justiciability. | Affirmed — this argument was not adequately briefed/argued and is treated as abandoned. |
Key Cases Cited
- W.S. Carnes, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 252 Va. 377 (standing requires a justiciable interest and actual controversy)
- Friends of the Rappahannock v. Caroline Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 286 Va. 38 (Declaratory judgment requires actual controversy with antagonistic assertion and denial of right)
- Williams v. Southern Bank of Norfolk, 203 Va. 657 (Declaratory judgment acts do not create substantive rights)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bishop, 211 Va. 414 (purpose of declaratory judgment is to declare existing rights before they mature)
- Charlottesville Area Fitness Club Operators Ass'n v. Albemarle Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 285 Va. 87 (declaratory relief inappropriate when objective is mere determination of disputed issue rather than adjudication of rights)
- Cherrie v. Virginia Health Services, 292 Va. 309 (do not infer private right of action from a silent statutory scheme)
- Goldman v. Landsidle, 262 Va. 364 (local taxpayer standing premised on direct, immediate relationship to local expenditures)
- Burk v. Porter, 222 Va. 795 (taxpayer standing to challenge municipal expenditures)
- Armstrong v. County of Henrico, 212 Va. 66 (taxpayer challenges to local government expenditures recognized)
- Gordon v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax Cnty., 207 Va. 827 (taxpayer standing in expenditure challenges)
- Appalachian Elec. Power Co. v. Town of Galax, 173 Va. 329 (taxpayer standing doctrine in local government fiscal matters)
- City of Fairfax v. Shanklin, 205 Va. 227 (mere taxpayer status and disagreement with government policy insufficient for standing)
- Estate of James v. Peyton, 277 Va. 443 (next‑friend standing appropriate where party in interest has standing)