Summary
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a § 1983 complaint alleging that a Virginia school district's transition to remote learning during the pandemic constituted an unconstitutional taking of students' property interests in public education. The court held that while state law may create a protected property interest in public education under the Due Process Clause, such an interest does not qualify as "private property" subject to compensation under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. Because the right to public education remains subject to government regulation and lacks the traditional incidents of private ownership, the plaintiffs failed to state a viable takings claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a state-law entitlement to public education that qualifies as a property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause also constitutes private property protected by the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.
- Whether plaintiffs stated a plausible claim for compensation under the Takings Clause based on Fairfax County Public Schools' use of remote instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Holdings
- A student's legally protected property interest in public education does not, by itself, constitute private property protected by the Takings Clause. The right to public education guaranteed under Virginia law is not private property for Takings Clause purposes.
- Plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim for compensation under the Takings Clause because they did not allege deprivation of private property protected by that Clause.
Key quotations
“property interests” that trigger Due Process Clause protections and “private property” under the Takings Clause are two different things.” (137 F.4th at 245)
“The Takings Clause, meanwhile, applies in a narrower set of circumstances: only to “private property,” and only when that property is “taken” by the government for “public use.”” (137 F.4th at 247)
“In short, and as the district court held, the plaintiffs’ argument, conflating “property interests” under the Due Process Clause with “private property” covered by the Takings Clause, is unavailing.” (137 F.4th at 248)
“Simply put, a person guaranteed a right to public education in Virginia does not possess the “bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property” as understood by the Takings Clause.” (137 F.4th at 250)
Factual background
The plaintiffs are parents of children with special needs who attend Fairfax County Public Schools and receive special-education services under Individualized Education Programs pursuant to the IDEA. From March 2020 through February 2021, the school system used virtual instruction in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs alleged that remote instruction was inconsistent with their children's individualized needs, caused them to fall behind, and constituted a taking of their children's purported Fifth Amendment property interest in public education.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs initially sued the superintendent of Fairfax County Public Schools, alleging that the transition to remote instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic took their children's purported property interest in public education. The district court first dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA. After the Supreme Court's decision in Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded. On remand, the district court held that exhaustion was not required but dismissed the complaint for failure to state a Takings Clause claim. The Fourth Circuit affirmed.