Sixth Circuit Won’t Hear Pre-Final-Judgment Appeal in Case Alleging Ohio School “Encouraged Young Children to Become Transgender …
From yesterday’s opinion by Judges Eric Clay, Amul Thapar, and Stephanie Dawkins Davis in Kaltenbach v. Hilliard City Schools (6th Cir.):
Plaintiffs—several parents of children who are currently enrolled in the Hilliard City School District (the “In-District Plaintiffs”), and one parent, D.S., of a student who was previously enrolled in the school district—appeal the district court’s dismissal, without prejudice, of the In-District Plaintiffs’ claims and all but three of D.S.’s claims for lack of standing….
We have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In the absence of a certification by the district court, an order or decision “that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action.” Three of D.S.’s claims remain pending in the district court, which did not grant certification under Rule 54(b) for Plaintiffs to appeal its dismissal order.
Plaintiffs therefore attempt to invoke the collateral order doctrine, which vests us with jurisdiction over an appeal from a non-final order if it conclusively determines the disputed question, resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits, and is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. We have held that standing fails the final prong of the collateral order doctrine inquiry; thus, we lack jurisdiction to review a non-final order on the basis that it granted or denied standing. Because Plaintiffs appeal a non-final order dismissing their claims only on standing grounds, the collateral order doctrine does not apply. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Judge Thapar concurred, writing:
The allegations in this case are beyond troubling. The plaintiffs say that a school district in Ohio encouraged young children to become transgender and then lied to parents about what was happening. They also say this decision wasn’t just the act of a rogue educator; it was district policy. For one child, T.S., the ramifications were tragic: she attempted to commit suicide. And she’s getting her day in court.
Because the District hasn’t been forthcoming about what is taking place inside its walls, other parents sued to protect their children, too. While the complaint paints a detailed and stark picture of what happened to T.S., it leaves these other parents as an afterthought.
Because of this, the district court found that those plaintiffs lacked standing. In other words, the complaint doesn’t explain how any injury to these plaintiffs is imminent. And it’s well settled that we don’t have jurisdiction to review this determination until the case is complete.
Of course, this procedural defect in no way diminishes the gravity of the plaintiffs’ allegations. And while this case will ultimately make its way to us, for some that might be too late. Thus, plaintiffs would be wise to amend their allegations below so their case can go forward.
[1.] According to the complaint, this case began when one of the plaintiffs’ daughters, an eighth-grader named T.S., began suffering from mental health issues. Her mother, D.S., did what any parent would do: she tried to get help for her child.
But T.S. ‘s school had a different plan. The plaintiffs assert that some teachers in the Hilliard City School District concluded that T.S. was experiencing so-called “gender dysphoria.” Without asking T.S.’s parents, the school decided, on its own, that it would start treating T.S. as a male. The plaintiffs say t
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
