Smith v. Jefferson County Board of School Commissioners, 641 F.3d 197

Jefferson County Board abolished its public alternative school and contracted with Kingswood to provide services for 2003-2004, replacing the board-run program.
Teachers Forgety, Smith, and Kucera alleged Establishment Clause and due-process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plus state-law claims.
District court granted summary judgment for the Board on most claims and denied partial standing for some claims.
Kingswood is an accredited private school with a Christian emphasis; its relationship to the program raised Establishment Clause concerns.
Board claimed actions were legislative budget decisions, and thus protected by legislative immunity; district court did not address all immunity issues.
The Sixth Circuit reversed in part, holding teachers have municipal-taxpayer standing to challenge the expenditure, remanding Establishment Clause claims for further proceedings; affirmed due-process rulings; and held Board members possess legislative immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge Establishment Clause	Forgety and Kucera have municipal-taxpayer standing	Board argues no municipal-taxpayer injury or redressable injury	Forgety and Kucera have municipal-taxpayer standing; Smith lacks standing; individual standing rejected
Establishment Clause against outsourcing to Kingswood	Teachers allege misuses municipal funds to fund religious provider	Outsourcing is budgetary decision with no direct Establishment Clause injury to teachers	Remand to address Establishment Clause claims; establish municipal-taxpayer standing supports challenge to expenditure
Procedural due process	Board violated due process by unilateral budget-driven abolition	Budget process is legislative; no pre-eviction process required	Board's budgetary actions are legislative; no due-process violation in this context
Substantive due process	Establishment Clause violation supports substantive due-process claim	Direct Establishment Clause claim preempts substantive due-process	Substantive due-process claim dismissed as duplicative of Establishment Clause claim (remanded for Establishment Clause reasoning)
Legislative immunity of Board members	Board members not true legislators; Dillon's Rule applies	Actions were legislative in nature; immune from personal liability	Board members entitled to legislative immunity in individual capacities; qualified immunity not reached

Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923) (municipal-taxpayer standing to challenge misuse of funds; injury direct and redressable not required for standing to challenge misuse)
Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982) (establishment-clause standing and remedies context)
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) (federal taxpayer standing for establishment challenges)
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (limits on taxpayer standing; municipal standing context)
Doremus v. Bd. of Educ., 342 U.S. 429 (1952) (state taxpayers standing; municipal standing distinct; good-faith injury concept discussed)
Hawley v. City of Cleveland, 773 F.2d 736 (6th Cir. 1985) (municipal-taxpayer standing where expenditure affects public funds; circumstances discussed)
City of New York, 972 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1992) (municipal taxpayers standing to challenge expenditures even without direct savings to taxpayer)
Koenick v. Felton, 190 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 1999) (municipal-taxpayer standing for unconstitutional expenditure)
Taub v. Kentucky, 842 F.2d 912 (6th Cir. 1988) (municipal-taxpayer standing based on direct injury to municipal funds)
Bogan v. City of Detroit (and related), 523 U.S. 44 (1998) (legislative immunity for local officials)
American Atheists, Inc. v. City of Detroit Downtown Dev. Auth., 567 F.3d 278 (6th Cir. 2009) (municipal taxpayer standing where government misuse of funds is alleged)