Elizabeth Deal v. Mercer County Board of Ed.
911 F.3d 183 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff who takes active steps to avoid an allegedly unconstitutional government practice, such as moving to a different school district, suffers an ongoing injury-in-fact sufficient to establish standing to seek an injunction. The act of avoidance itself, and the accompanying feelings of marginalization, are cognizable harms that are redressable by a court order eliminating the challenged practice.
Facts:
- For nearly 80 years, Mercer County Schools operated a "Bible in the Schools" (BITS) program, offering weekly bible lessons during the regular school day.
- Elizabeth Deal, an agnostic, withheld permission for her first-grade daughter, Jessica, to participate in the BITS program at Memorial Primary School.
- Because Jessica did not participate, school officials separated her from her classmates during the lessons, initially placing her in a coatroom.
- Jessica faced harassment from other students for not participating in BITS, including being told that she and her mother were going to hell.
- Deal and Jessica experienced feelings of marginalization and exclusion within their community due to the BITS program.
- Citing the BITS program and the treatment Jessica received as a major reason, Deal enrolled Jessica in a neighboring school district for the fourth grade.
Procedural Posture:
- Elizabeth and Jessica Deal sued the Mercer County Board of Education and other school officials in federal district court, seeking an injunction and nominal damages for alleged Establishment Clause violations.
- During the proceedings, the County notified the court that it had suspended the 'Bible in the Schools' program for at least one year.
- The County moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing and failure to state a claim.
- The district court granted the County's motion to dismiss, holding that the Deals lacked standing and that their claims were not ripe.
- The Deals, as appellants, appealed the district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do plaintiffs who moved to a different school district to avoid a public school's allegedly unconstitutional religious instruction program have standing to seek an injunction against that program?
Opinions:
Majority - Diana Gribbon Motz
Yes. Plaintiffs who moved to a different school district to avoid an allegedly unconstitutional religious program have standing to seek an injunction because they suffer from actual, ongoing injuries that are redressable by the court. The court identified two ongoing injuries: (1) the burden of avoiding the BITS program by sending Jessica to a school in a neighboring district, and (2) enduring feelings of marginalization and exclusion. These are not speculative future harms but are actual, current injuries. An injunction would redress these injuries by removing the obstacle that compels them to attend school elsewhere and by eliminating the government-sponsored source of their marginalization. The court also held that the county's temporary suspension of the program did not render the case moot, as the county failed to meet its heavy burden of making it 'absolutely clear' that the challenged conduct could not reasonably be expected to recur.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that 'avoider standing' is a valid basis for challenging Establishment Clause violations, even when the plaintiff has physically removed themselves from direct contact with the challenged practice. It clarifies that injuries such as the financial and personal burdens of avoidance, as well as the emotional harm of marginalization, are concrete and ongoing for standing purposes. This precedent makes it more difficult for government entities to evade judicial review by arguing a case is moot after a plaintiff relocates or after the entity temporarily suspends the challenged policy, thus strengthening protections for individuals confronting state-sponsored religious activities.
