Bender et al. v. Williamsport Area School District et al.
475 U.S. 534 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual member of a governmental body, sued in an official capacity, lacks Article III standing to appeal a judgment after the collective body has decided not to appeal. Furthermore, a basis for standing, such as parental status, cannot be asserted for the first time on appeal and must be affirmatively established in the trial court record.
Facts:
- A group of students at Williamsport Area High School formed a club called 'Petros' to promote spiritual growth.
- Petros requested permission from the Principal to meet on school premises during the designated student activity period.
- The Principal permitted one organizational meeting, where scripture was read and students prayed.
- Following the first meeting, the Principal and School Superintendent denied the club permission for further meetings.
- The denial was based on the legal advice of the School District's Solicitor, who opined that allowing the club to meet would be unconstitutional.
- The students appealed the decision to the Williamsport Area School Board.
- The School Board, relying on the same legal opinion from its solicitor, voted to uphold the denial of the students' request.
- John C. Youngman, Jr. was a member of the School Board at the time of these events.
Procedural Posture:
- Ten students filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the School District, its nine Board members in their official capacities, the Superintendent, and the Principal.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the students on their freedom of speech claim and entered a declaratory judgment against the defendants.
- The School District and eight of the nine School Board members decided to comply with the judgment and did not appeal.
- John C. Youngman, Jr., the sole dissenting board member and appellant, filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment, ruling in favor of Youngman.
- The students, as petitioners, were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a single member of a nine-member School Board, sued only in his official capacity, have standing to appeal a declaratory judgment entered against the School Board after the Board itself has voted not to appeal?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No. A single member of the School Board sued in his official capacity does not have standing to appeal a judgment against the Board when the Board itself has chosen not to appeal. A suit against an official in their official capacity is effectively a suit against the entity they represent, not the individual. Therefore, Mr. Youngman has no personal stake in the outcome of the litigation that would grant him standing. Because the School Board itself, the real party in interest, chose to comply with the District Court's judgment, Mr. Youngman cannot 'step into the shoes of the Board' and invoke its right to appeal. Furthermore, his status as a parent cannot confer standing because this fact was never entered into the court record, and appellate jurisdiction must be based on facts affirmatively appearing in the record, not on belated assertions in briefs or at oral argument.
Concurring - Justice Marshall
No. Mr. Youngman lacks standing. The parties cannot create Article III jurisdiction through a belated, unsupported statement that Mr. Youngman is a parent. The dispute in the District Court was between students and the School Board; that controversy ended when the Board decided not to appeal. The appeal attempts to create a new dispute between Mr. Youngman as a parent and the students. This is improper because his parental status does not appear anywhere in the record and must be established there to form a basis for jurisdiction.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Burger
Yes. Mr. Youngman has standing to appeal as a parent of a student at the high school. The strict pleading requirements for establishing standing at the trial level should not apply to a defendant seeking an appeal. As a parent, he has a direct interest in the conditions at his child's school. Because he has standing, the Court should have reached the merits and held that allowing the student group to meet does not violate the Establishment Clause, as it constitutes protected private speech, not government endorsement of religion.
Dissenting - Justice Powell
Yes. Mr. Youngman has standing to appeal. On the merits, this case is controlled by Widmar v. Vincent, which held that a university could not deny student religious groups access to a generally open forum. The age difference between high school students and university students is not a significant enough distinction to justify a different outcome, as First Amendment rights extend to high school students as well.
Analysis:
This case serves as a critical lesson on the strictness of Article III standing requirements, particularly regarding appellate jurisdiction. It establishes that an individual member of a collective body cannot unilaterally represent the body's interests in court after the body has declined to act. The decision strongly reaffirms the principle that the factual basis for standing must be established in the trial court record and cannot be introduced for the first time on appeal. This holding prevents litigants from manufacturing standing at the appellate level and ensures that federal courts only adjudicate genuine controversies based on a developed factual record.
Unlock the full brief for Bender et al. v. Williamsport Area School District et al.