Niya Kenny v. Alan Wilson
885 F.3d 280 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff has standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge against a statute they allege is unconstitutionally vague if they have been prosecuted under it before, intend to engage in a course of conduct that is arguably proscribed by the statute, and face a credible threat of future prosecution.
Facts:
- D.S., a black high school student with learning disabilities, was charged with violating the Disturbing Schools Law after being involved in a physical altercation that she did not start and in which she was the only one injured.
- S.P., a white high school student with mood and conduct disabilities, was charged with violating the Disorderly Conduct Law after she cursed at a student who had been teasing her and then refused to follow a principal's instruction to leave the library.
- Niya Kenny, a black high school student at the time, was arrested under the Disturbing Schools Law after she verbally protested and tried to document a school resource officer violently dragging a classmate from her desk.
- Taurean Nesmith, a black college student, was arrested by a campus police officer on suspicion of violating both statutes after he complained that the officer was engaging in racial profiling.
- Girls Rock Charleston, a non-profit organization, has members who were charged under the Disturbing Schools Law for conduct such as loudly protesting being sent to a 'tardy sweep' room or talking in the hallway.
- D.S., S.P., and Nesmith continue to attend schools in South Carolina where they fear their future actions, including normal student behaviors, will be interpreted as violating these statutes, leading to arrest and prosecution.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Niya Kenny, Taurean Nesmith, Girls Rock Charleston, D.S., and S.P. filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina against various South Carolina officials.
- The complaint sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction, alleging that South Carolina's Disturbing Schools Law and Disorderly Conduct Law were unconstitutionally vague.
- The defendants (Appellees) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs' fear of future arrest was speculative and did not constitute an 'injury in fact' required for Article III standing.
- The plaintiffs (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 students who have previously been arrested under South Carolina's 'Disturbing Schools Law' or 'Disorderly Conduct Law' and who continue to attend school have standing to seek an injunction against the laws' enforcement on the grounds that they are unconstitutionally vague?
Opinions:
Majority - Diaz, J.
Yes, students who have been previously arrested under allegedly vague state laws and continue to attend school where they face a credible threat of future prosecution for common behaviors have standing to challenge those laws. A plaintiff can establish the required 'injury in fact' for prospective relief in two ways: by showing a credible threat of future prosecution under the Babbitt test, or by demonstrating a 'chilling effect' on their First Amendment rights through self-censorship. Here, plaintiffs S.P., D.S., and Nesmith satisfy the Babbitt test because they intend to engage in constitutionally protected conduct (attending school, which involves expressive activity) that is arguably proscribed by the vague statutes, and they face a credible threat of prosecution. This threat is not speculative because they have been prosecuted in the past for similar conduct, the defendants have not disavowed future enforcement, and data suggests the laws are enforced in a discriminatory manner against students like them. The district court's reliance on City of Los Angeles v. Lyons was misplaced, as that case did not involve a pre-enforcement challenge to a statute or a First Amendment chilling effect. Unlike in Lyons, the plaintiffs here allege that future encounters with law enforcement at school are inevitable and that the statutes themselves authorize the alleged constitutional violations.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standing requirements for pre-enforcement challenges to allegedly vague criminal statutes, particularly in the educational and First Amendment contexts. It distinguishes the high jurisdictional bar set by City of Los Angeles v. Lyons for enjoining police practices from the standard applicable to facial challenges of statutes that chill protected speech. The ruling reinforces that a credible threat of prosecution can be established by a combination of past enforcement, a plaintiff's continued presence in the environment where the law applies, and the government's failure to disavow future enforcement. This precedent provides a crucial pathway for individuals, especially students, to challenge laws they believe are enforced arbitrarily and discriminatorily without first having to risk another arrest.
