McArthur v. Brabrand, 610 F.Supp.3d 822

Background

The McArthurs (parents) sued on behalf of four minor children, all unvaccinated at briefing, after repeated FCPS COVID-19 quarantines of two younger children (M.M. and M.H.M.) following exposures in late 2021 and early 2022.
FCPS policy initially allowed vaccinated, asymptomatic close contacts to remain in school but required unvaccinated close contacts to quarantine (later reduced from 14 to 10, then to 7 days with testing); policy changed again in March 2022 to stop identifying school close contacts and permit asymptomatic students to attend in-person regardless of vaccination status.
Plaintiffs alleged five claims: Equal Protection (vaccination-based disparate treatment), Virginia constitutional right to education, substantive and procedural due process, parental rights, and violation of the EUA statute; they sought injunctive/declaratory relief and nominal damages.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); the court previously granted dismissal of the public-health defendant and took FCPS officials’ motion under advisement.
The court found two older children lacked Article III standing (no alleged quarantine/injury), held prospective injunctive relief was moot given FCPS policy changes, but preserved claims seeking nominal damages and declaratory relief as not moot.
On the merits, the court applied rational-basis review to the vaccination-based classification, found FCPS’s reliance on contemporaneous CDC guidance rational, and dismissed all remaining constitutional and statutory claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing & Mootness	All children were injured by quarantines; injunctive relief still needed because policy might recur	Two children (older) never quarantined; FCPS policy changes mooted prospective relief	Dismissed M.J.M. and M.D.M. for lack of standing; prospective injunctive claims moot; nominal damages and declaratory relief survive
Equal Protection (Count I)	Treating naturally immune unvaccinated students worse than vaccinated students is irrational and discriminates	Policy is vaccination-based, not a suspect classification, and rationally follows CDC/public-health guidance	Applied rational-basis review; policy survives; Equal Protection claim dismissed
Virginia Right to Education (Count II)	Quarantines unlawfully deprived children of fundamental right to in-person education	Remote instruction was available; brief absences do not amount to denial of the constitutional right	Dismissed: Virginia Constitution does not require in-person attendance or parity of instructional quality in these facts
Due Process, Parental Rights & EUA Preemption (Counts III–V)	Quarantines deprived procedural/substantive due process and conditioned in-person schooling on vaccination; EUA protects right to refuse	Policies were general, subject to emergency public-health judgments, and Plaintiffs retained vaccination choice; no private cause of action under EUA	All claims dismissed: procedural/substantive due process and parental-rights theories fail; EUA-based relief unavailable in private suit; unconstitutional-conditions claim fails

Key Cases Cited

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete injury and traceability)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (standards for heightened equal-protection scrutiny)
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (student property interest in education and due-process context for suspensions)
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (state authority to protect public health via compulsory vaccination principles)
Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (government interest in stemming COVID-19 spread)
Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 141 S. Ct. 792 (nominal damages provide redressability for completed constitutional violations)
Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 972 F.3d 586 (retrospective relief and declaratory/nominal damages can prevent mootness)