Manley v. Bruce Law & Hinsdale Twp. High Sch. Dist. 86
889 F.3d 885
7th Cir.2018Background
- Claudia Manley, an elected member of Hinsdale Twp. High School District 86 board, got into a verbal dispute with a student leafleting for her political opponents outside a school play in March 2015.
- The student alleged bullying; public pressure followed (voicemails, petitions, media, public meetings), and the superintendent, Bruce Law, opened an investigation.
- The Manleys sued in state court seeking to enjoin the investigation and later sought declaratory relief and damages including under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the case was removed to federal court.
- The investigation concluded with a public report and a formal admonishment that Manley violated a district policy on civility; no change to Manley’s legal status resulted and she later did not seek reelection.
- The district court granted defendants’ summary judgment: plaintiffs failed to show deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest; Noel Manley also lacked standing; remaining state-law claims were remanded.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding plaintiffs identified no freestanding liberty/property interest protected by the Due Process Clause that was deprived by the investigation or reprimand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether procedural due process was violated by the investigation and reprimand | Manley: deprivation of a protected liberty interest (feeling of fair dealing; emotional well-being; denial of procedures) | Defendants: no constitutionally protected liberty or property interest was deprived; actions fall within political oversight and state tort/procedural law | No due process violation: plaintiffs failed to identify a freestanding liberty or property interest |
| Whether emotional harm alone is a protected liberty interest | Manley: emotional well-being is protected and Carey permits recovery for emotional harms from due process violations | Defendants: emotional harms are governed by state tort law, not an independent federal due process right | Rejected: emotional well-being is not an independent liberty interest under due process; tort remedies are state-law matters |
| Whether a subjective "feeling of fair dealing" is protected | Manley: Due Process guarantees a feeling that government dealt fairly (relying on Carey language) | Defendants: Carey does not create a freestanding constitutional interest; procedural due process does not itself create substantive rights | Rejected: no precedent recognizes a constitutional right to subjective feelings of fair treatment |
| Whether state or board procedural violations give rise to federal due process claims | Manley: failures to follow board policy/state law denied required procedures | Defendants: state procedural rules alone do not create federal liberty/property interests | Rejected: procedural promises create federal protection only when tied to substantive entitlement; here none identified |
Key Cases Cited
- Brunson v. Murray, 843 F.3d 698 (7th Cir.) (standard of review on summary judgment and viewing facts in plaintiffs’ favor)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (procedural due process requires notice and meaningful hearing before deprivation of protected interests)
- Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1978) (damages for due process violations may include emotional harms where a constitutional deprivation is shown)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (U.S. 1976) (reputational and similar interests are not freestanding liberty interests for procedural due process absent state-created entitlement)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1975) (recognition of state entitlement—public education—creating a protected interest)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (robust protection for public debate and criticisms of public officials)
- Alston v. King, 231 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2000) (distinguishable: underlying property/contractual entitlement and denied hearing supported due process claim)
- Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (U.S. 2011) (federal courts do not enforce compliance with all state-prescribed procedures absent a protected liberty or property interest)
- Cromwell v. City of Momence, 713 F.3d 361 (7th Cir.) (procedural rules create federal interests only when they protect a substantive entitlement)