83 F.4th 658
8th Cir.2023Background
- Linn-Mar Community School District adopted Board Policy 504.13-R (Apr. 2022) to provide "gender supports" for transgender and gender-nonconforming students (Gender Support Plans, confidentiality, names/pronouns, restroom/locker accommodations).
- The policy states that an "intentional and/or persistent refusal . . . to respect a student's gender identity" violates school policy and may be disciplined, potentially including suspension or expulsion.
- Parents Defending Education (association) and seven anonymous parents sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging (a) substantive due process violations (parents’ right to direct care/custody — notification/consent) and (b) First Amendment violations (students chilled from expressing beliefs about sex/gender).
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction for lack of standing and on the merits. On appeal the Eighth Circuit found the substantive due process claim moot because Iowa enacted Iowa Code § 279.78 (Senate File 496) requiring parental notice in many circumstances.
- The court held that at least one member (Parent G) had Article III standing to bring a First Amendment claim on behalf of a student who refrained from expressing views about biological sex and transgender participation in sports due to the policy.
- The Eighth Circuit concluded Parents Defending is likely to succeed on the First Amendment vagueness challenge to the phrase "refusal . . . to respect a student's gender identity," vacated the district court’s orders, and remanded with directions to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of that portion of the policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parental-notice/substantive-due-process claim remains live | Parents A–C: policy allows withholding of parental notice about gender support plans; infringes parental rights to direct care/custody | District: policy permitted confidentiality; district court rejected standing | Moot — Iowa’s Senate File 496 (Iowa Code §279.78) requires notice/reporting in specified circumstances; appeal dismissed as moot on this claim |
| Whether students (Parents D–G) have standing to challenge policy as chilling speech | Association: students deterred from expressing beliefs (e.g., biological sex immutable, opposition to trans athletes) because policy proscribes "refusal to respect" and threatens discipline | District: speech at issue could be harassment/bullying and thus unprotected; no credible threat of enforcement | Standing: at least Parent G has standing (credible threat; speech is arguably protected; policy arguably proscribes it) |
| Whether the policy violates the First Amendment (vagueness/overbreadth) | Policy is unconstitutionally vague because "respect" is undefined and could encompass protected opinion/expression, enabling arbitrary enforcement | District: term "respect" limited to names/pronouns; policy intended to prevent harassment and comply with Title IX/Iowa law | Likely to succeed on vagueness: the term "respect a student's gender identity" lacks sufficient clarity; preliminary injunction against enforcing that clause directed |
Key Cases Cited
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (pre-enforcement standing for chilled speech requires credible threat)
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (student speech framework; schools may regulate speech that substantially disrupts)
- Saxe v. State Coll. Area Sch. Dist., 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001) (offensive speech alone does not permit restriction)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (laws must provide fair warning and avoid arbitrary enforcement)
- Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (four-factor preliminary injunction test)
- Minn. Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2012) (when First Amendment success likely, other PI factors generally satisfied)
- United States v. Barraza, 576 F.3d 798 (8th Cir. 2009) (vagueness analysis)
- Stephenson v. Davenport Cmty. Sch. Dist., 110 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997) (greater specificity required when school rules reach protected speech)
- Alexis Bailly Vineyard, Inc. v. Harrington, 931 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2019) (text-based ‘‘credible threat’’ of enforcement)
- Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (Title IX deliberate indifference can create liability)
- Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) (employment discrimination analysis extends to sexual orientation/transgender status)
- Doe v. Boyertown Area Sch. Dist., 897 F.3d 518 (3d Cir. 2018) (risks to transgender students and school efforts to accommodate)