Morrison v. Board of Educ

3 Citing cases

  1. Hange v. Mansfield

    257 F. App'x 887 (6th Cir. 2007)   Cited 17 times
    Finding that plaintiff-employee who alleged due process violations after being subject to "conditional termination" of employment lacked standing to pursue declaratory or injunctive relief because his conditional termination was rescinded; however, that plaintiff had standing to pursue monetary damages arising out of employer's past disciplinary actions

    Indeed, a past "chill" may constitute an injury-in-fact sufficient to support standing even when the offensive policy has since been changed. See Morrison v. Bd. of Educ. of Boyd County, 507 F.3d 494, 502-03 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that a plaintiff had standing to seek nominal damages for alleged past "chilling" of his First Amendment rights). Although the Supreme Court has admonished that "[a]llegations of a subjective `chill' are not an adequate substitute for a claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm," Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 13 -14, 92 S.Ct. 2318, 33 L.Ed.2d 154 (1972), that case dealt with claims for forward-looking relief, which we have addressed above, see supra Part III.A.

  2. Morrison v. Board

    521 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 2008)   Cited 105 times
    Finding that plaintiff's allegations constituted no more than impermissibly subjective chilling “[a]bsent a concrete act on the part of [defendants]”

    COOK, Circuit Judge. This panel heard arguments in the matter before us on July 25, 2007, after which we filed an opinion, Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, 507 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2007), reversing the judgment of the district court and remanding for further proceedings. Subsequently, the Board of Education of Boyd County (the "Board") filed a petition for rehearing en banc.

  3. Parker v. Hurley

    514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008)   Cited 246 times
    Finding no cognizable burden from the lack of notice or the opportunity to opt out from children's "exposure to books" that espouse views contrary to their religious faith when there was no evidence the school required "student [to] agree with or affirm those ideas, or even participate in discussions about them"

    Plaintiffs do not claim a general right of censorship, only that they have a right to notice and exemption.See, e.g., Leebaert, 332 F.3d 134 (no free exercise or parental due process right violated by school's refusal to exempt student from mandatory health class); Littlefield, 268 F.3d 275 (no parental due process or free exercise violation in refusal to exempt child from mandatory uniform policy); Morrison ex rel. Morrison v. Bd. of Educ., 419 F.Supp.2d 937 (E.D.Ky. 2006) (no right to exempt child from mandatory school diversity training on homosexuality), rev'd on other grounds, 507 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2007). In two cases in which plaintiffs did not raise a related parental rights due process claim, federal courts have rejected free exercise claims seeking exemptions from the schools' assignment of particular books.