Missing your old Con Law class? Check out the Eleventh Circuit's recent decision in Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County, Florida. The case involved a school board policy that allowed elementary school officials to develop a gender-identity-related "Student Support Plan" for a child without parental permission or involvement. The parents sued the school board, arguing that the board violated their fundamental parental due process and familial privacy rights.
The Court ultimately held that the trial court correctly dismissed the claims, reasoning that the parents were challenging "executive" action, that the "shocks the conscience" standard applies, and that the board's alleged actions didn't so shock. But the more interesting debate came in the lengthy concurrences, where Judges Rosenbaum and Newsom sparred over the continuing utility of the entire substantive due process doctrine—particularly, the differences in how it applies to legislative versus executive actions. Oh, and Judge Tjoflat thought that the Littlejohns' claim should have been allowed to proceed.
A lot to unpack here.Substantive Due Process by John Byrne on Scribd
5 comments:
Fun to watch the Eleventh (qualified immunity for all and good luck ever suing the government) have to start facing the reality that if they allow right wingers to bring cases that advance, it will eventually apply the other way too. Eventually they will come up with some doctrine or exception that protects conservative actions to the detriment of liberal ones.
While I do love Newsom's style and think he's one of the most compelling writers on the court, he's off his rocker on the 14th Amendment. And Rosenbaum elegantly (and rightly) handed his ass to him.
Anyone else get the impression that 95-year-old Tjoflat just can't wrap his Silent Generation mind around trans issues? That dissent was tough to read, not the least because it was horribly disorganized, trite, and scattershot.
Test
Who's his clerk??
Post a Comment