D.M. v. Minnesota State High School LeagueD.M. v. Minnesota State High School League
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Loken, Melloy, Erickson
In 2018, two boys sued their state‘s high school athletic league and several of its officers for declaratory and injunctive relief under
I.
Appellants D.M. and Z.G. are sixteen-year-old boys who attend high school in Maplewood and Minnetonka, Minnesota, respectively. Both are in the eleventh grade. Both are passionate about dance and have participated in various dance classes and programs. Both want to dance on their schools’ competitive dance teams but, for reаsons explained below, have been prohibited from doing so.
Appellee Minnesota State High School League (the “League“) is a non-profit corporation that is a voluntary association of high schools. The League exercises authority delegated to it by the high schools to control high school extracurricular activities and sports throughout the state. To obtain and maintain such control, the
The League‘s Bylaw 412 limits participation on a school‘s competitive dance team to females. The League claims that the reason for this limitation is that girls’ “overall athletic opportunities have previously been limited,” whereas boys’ have not. To support its claim, thе League points to data compiled by Amicus National Federation of High School Athletic Associations (“NFHS“). The League also relies on Minnesota law, which allows for gender-based, athletic limitations in certain circumstances. See
D.M. and Z.G. sued the League in July 2018 for allegedly violating Title IX and their rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Shortly thereafter, the boys moved for a preliminary injunction of Bylaw 412 as it pertains to boys and competitive dance teams. The district court denied the motion. Despite finding that the boys suffered irreparable harm and that “the balance of harms may favor” them, the district court concluded that the injunction was not warranted because the boys were not likely to prevail on the merits. The district court also concluded that the public interest, as reflected in Minnesota Statute section 121A.04, favored denying the injunction. The court explained that “[t]he girls-only dance team rule is substantially related to an important governmental objective“—namely, “increasing girls’ athletic opportunities.” Moreover, the court said that Title IX permits the League to create girls-only athletic teams such as dance teams. The bоys timely filed a notice of appeal.
We review “the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion.” Gresham v. Swanson, 866 F.3d 853, 854 (8th Cir. 2017). A district court abuses its discretion when it “rests its conclusion on clearly erroneous factual findings or erroneous legal conclusions.” Jones v. Kelley, 854 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). “We will not disturb a district court‘s discretionary decision if such decision remains within the range of choice available to the district court, accounts for all relevant factors, does not rely on any irrelevant factors, and does not constitute a clear error of judgment.” Richland/Wilkin Joint Powers Auth. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng‘rs, 826 F.3d 1030, 1035 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting PCTV Gold, Inc. v. SpeedNet, LLC, 508 F.3d 1137, 1142 (8th Cir. 2007)). We review a district court‘s legal conclusions de novo. Barrett v. Claycomb, 705 F.3d 315, 320 (8th Cir. 2013).
When determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the district court considers: “(1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that [the] movant will succeеd on the merits; and (4) the public interest.” Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc). Generally, no one of these factors is determinative. Id. at 113. However, “the absence of a likelihood of success on the merits strongly suggests that preliminary injunctive relief should be denied.” Barrett, 705 F.3d at 320 (quoting CDI Energy Servs., Inc. v. West River Pumps, Inc., 567 F.3d 398, 402 (8th Cir. 2009)). Consequently, we will begin our review with an analysis of that factor.
A.
There are two standards a district court may apply when assessing a movant‘s probability of success on the merits. The first, which applies in most instances, directs the district court to ask whether the party requesting a preliminary injunction has a “fair chance of prevailing.” Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724, 732 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc). This fair-chance standard does
As noted above, the test for determining which standard applies is whether the “preliminary injunction is sought to enjoin the implementation of a duly enacted state statute.” Id. We apply a heightened standard in such instances because the duly enacted state statute constitutes “government action based on presumptively reasoned democratic processes,” and such action is “еntitled to a higher degree of deference and should not be enjoined lightly.” Id. at 732 (quoting Able v. United States, 44 F.3d 128, 131 (2d Cir. 1995)). The likely-to-prevail test may also be appropriate when a movant seeks to preliminarily enjoin other forms of government action such as “administrative actions by federal, state or local government agencies.” Id. at 732 n.6. However, in those cases, the suggested course of action is to first “evaluate whether ‘the full play of thе democratic process[]’ was involved” in the actions and “then determine which standard would be more appropriate.” Richland/Wilkin, 826 F.3d at 1040 (quoting Rounds, 530 F.3d at 732 n.6).
Here, Bylaw 412 can, under Eighth Circuit precedent, rightly be considered government action. See Brenden v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 742, 477 F.2d 1292, 1295 (8th Cir. 1973) (determining that the League “act[ed] under color of state law” for purposes of
To the extent the League argues that the heightened standard applies because it is implementing a statе statute, Minnesota Statute section 121A.04, we reject the argument. Section 121A.04 does not direct the League to do anything; rather, the statute permits the League to discriminate on the basis of sex in limited circumstances—when athletic opportunities for a sex have previously been limited. The League must still show the continuing lack of opportunity and how the challenged policy addresses that inequity. Nothing in this action cаlls into question the validity of the underlying statute.
Consequently, the heightened, likely-to-prevail standard does not apply to the boys’ preliminary injunction motion. We ask, instead, whether the boys have a fair chance of prevailing.
B.
We now turn to the merits of the boys’ claims, applying the appropriate standard. The boys argue that the League violated their Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights when it banned them from рarticipating on their high schools’ competitive dance teams because they are male. The League contends that it is justified in precluding the
On the issue of past discrimination, the parties havе submitted a chart that shows, for Minnesota in a given year, the relative percentages of boys and girls enrolled in League-member schools statewide. It then shows the relative percentages of boys and girls among those students participating in interscholastic sports. The underrepresented sex column shows the difference between the percentage of students enrolled and the percentage of students participating in interscholastic sports for whichever gender is underrepresented that year. The chart is reproduced here as follows:
| League-Member School Enrollments and Athletes by Gender | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | League Members Enrollment Boys | League Members Enrollment Girls | League Athletes Boys | League Athletes Girls | Underrepresented Sex |
| 2013–14 | 133,964 (51.3%) | 127,364 (48.7%) | 119,034 (53.2%) | 104,706 (46.8%) | Girls (-1.9%) |
| 2014–15 | 134,879 (51.3%) | 128,128 (48.7%) | 118,899 (52.4%) | 108,084 (47.6%) | Girls (-1.1%) |
| 2015–16 | 136,257 (51.3%) | 129,394 (48.7%) | 121,024 (52.4%) | 110,023 (47.6%) | Girls (-1.1%) |
| 2016–17 | 137,603 (51.4%) | 130,263 (48.6%) | 122,269 (51.1%) | 117,020 (48.9%) | Boys (-0.3%) |
| Average | 135,676 (51.3%) | 128,787 (48.7%) | 120,307 (52.2%) | 109,958 (47.8%) | Girls (-1.0%) |
The same data for 2017–18 shows boys were underrepresented by 0.35%.
The Court has explained that “gender-based classification[s] favoring one sex” that are designed to remedy past discrimination can be justified “[i]n limited circumstances.” Miss. Univ., 458 U.S. at 728. Such circumstances exist when the classification “intentionally and directly assists members of the sex that is disproportionately burdened.” Id. However, a government actor may “evoke a compensatory purpose to justify an otherwise discriminatory classification only if members of the gender benefited by the classification actually suffer a disadvantage related to the classification.” Id. (emphasis added). In other words, for a government actor to classify individuals based on gender for the purpose of remedying a prior lack of opportunities, the individuals must continue tо lack opportunities or the classification is not constitutionally justified. See id. at 729 (declaring a public university‘s women-only policy to be unconstitutional because the university had “made no showing . . . that women [were] currently . . . deprived of” opportunities to obtain nursing training or positions of leadership); id. at 730 (“[A]lthough the State recited a ‘benign, compensatory purpose,’ it failed to establish that the alleged objectivе is the actual purpose underlying the discriminatory classification.“).
The League does not offer any such justification. Instead, it merely argues, in broad terms, that restricting the membership of athletic teams to one sex “advances the important government interest of promoting safety, increasing competition, redressing past discrimination, and providing more athletic opportunities for female athletes.” The Leaguе also cites a Rhode Island Supreme Court case, Kleczek v. R.I. Interscholastic League, Inc., 612 A.2d 734 (R.I. 1992) (per curiam), in which the court held that promoting safety and preserving interscholastic athletic competition for boys and girls are important government interests. Id. at 739. Kleczek, however, in addition to being non-binding, is distinguishable from this case. Kleczek involved a ban on boys participating on girls-only field hockey teams. Id. at 735. The court, understandably, had concerns about participants’ safety if bоys were allowed on the teams. Id. at 739. Here, the League does not explain how allowing boys to dance on their schools’ competitive dance3 teams would be unsafe or how it would deprive girls of opportunities to compete. Moreover, Kleczek was decided under the Rhode Island constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. Id. at 736. We find the League‘s asserted other justifications for prohibiting boys from participating on high school competitive dance teams unpersuasive.
Because the League has not asserted an “exceedingly persuasive” justification for keeping boys from participating on high school competitive dance teams, we hold that the boys had more than a fair chance of prevailing on the merits of their case.4 The district court erred in concluding otherwise.
C.
Because we conclude that the boys have a fair chance of prevailing on the merits of their equal protection claim, we need not address their probability of success on their Title IX claim. See Richland/Wilkin, 826 F.3d at 1040 (“The plaintiff ‘need only
The district court concluded that the boys “sufficiently demonstrated irreparable harm.” We agree. Students who are denied the opportunity to join thеir schools’ sports teams because of their sex may suffer irreparable harm. See Bednar v. Neb. Sch. Activities Ass‘n, 531 F.2d 922, 923 (8th Cir. 1976) (per curiam). That is especially true here. Both boys are juniors in high school. They love to dance and want to do so competitively as part of a school team. The League‘s ban has prohibited them from doing so this year. They cannot get that season back. Without injunctive relief or final resolution of their suit, they will be prеvented from competing next year as well. These sorts of injuries, i.e., deprivations of temporally isolated opportunities, are exactly what preliminary injunctions are intended to relieve.
Furthermore, we hold that the district court erred in concluding that the public interest favored denying the injunction. The district court reasoned that “[t]he public interest is evidenced in the Minnesota statute allowing girls-only teams that do not violate Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause.” That statement, while true enough, overlooks the fair probability that the League‘s bylaw violates the Constitution. “[T]he public is served by the preservation of constitutional rights.” Phelps-Roper v. Nixon, 545 F.3d 685, 694 (8th Cir. 2008), overruled on other grounds by Phelps-Roper v. City of Manchester, 697 F.3d 678, 692 (8th Cir. 2012) (en banc); see also Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1132 (10th Cir. 2012) (“[I]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party‘s constitutional rights.” (quoting G & V Lounge, Inc. v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm‘n, 23 F.3d 1071, 1079 (6th Cir. 1994))). As such, the public interest Dataphase factor favors the boys.
Finally, we hold that the balance of harms tips in favor of granting an injunction. The district court alluded that such may be the cаse in its memorandum and order, and for good reason. If the injunction is granted, the boys may try out for their schools’
III.
In sum, all of the Dataphase factors favor granting D.M.‘s and Z.G.‘s motion for a preliminary injunction. We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for the district court to issue а preliminary injunction in favor of the boys.