Summary
The Ninth Circuit vacated the dismissal of Aurora Regino’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint challenging a Chico Unified School District policy concerning the use of a student’s preferred name and pronouns without parental notification. The court held that the district court applied erroneous standards to Regino’s substantive and procedural due process claims and remanded for further analysis of her facial and as-applied challenges.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court applied the proper substantive due process standard when it dismissed Regino's as-applied claim for failure to identify a fundamental right clearly established in existing precedent.
- Whether a plaintiff asserting a procedural due process claim must identify a fundamental right.
- Whether the district court's failure to distinguish facial from as-applied challenges required vacatur of its dismissal of the facial claims.
- Whether the Ninth Circuit should decide in the first instance whether Regino adequately alleged infringement of a fundamental right or deprivation of a protected liberty interest.
Holdings
- A plaintiff asserting a substantive due process claim under a fundamental-rights theory need not show that existing precedent clearly established the asserted fundamental right. The applicable inquiry is whether the asserted interest is objectively, deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.
- The recognized parental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of children is not absolute; on remand, the district court must narrowly define the asserted interest, examine the challenged policy's terms, and determine whether the particular asserted right is fundamental.
- A plaintiff need not identify a fundamental right to establish a procedural due process violation; procedural due process protects liberty interests derived from state law or from the Due Process Clause itself.
- Because the district court applied erroneous reasoning to the as-applied claims and did not address the distinction between facial and as-applied challenges, its dismissal of the facial claims was also flawed and had to be vacated.
Key quotations
“The qualified immunity framework does not govern the merits of substantive due process claims, where the critical inquiry is whether an asserted fundamental right is “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if [it was] sacrificed.”” (20)
“Accordingly, Regino need not have identified a fundamental right to establish a violation of her procedural due process rights.” (30)
“Because we conclude that the district court erred in its analysis of Regino’s as-applied claims, its analysis of Regino’s facial claims was flawed.” (31)
Factual background
A Chico Unified School District policy required personnel, subject to specified exceptions, to accept a student's asserted gender identity and use the student's preferred name and pronouns without a court order or change to official records. Regino alleged that school personnel began referring to her eleven-year-old child by a new name and male pronouns without informing her, and that personnel disclosed the child's preferred identity within the school while withholding it from Regino. Regino contended that the policy interfered with her parental decision-making and liberty interests and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
Procedural history
Regino challenged a Chico Unified School District policy governing the use of students' preferred names and pronouns and disclosure of transgender or gender-nonconforming status. The district court denied a preliminary injunction, dismissed the First Amended Complaint in full, and denied leave to amend after concluding that Regino had not alleged a fundamental right clearly established by existing precedent. The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded because the district court applied the qualified-immunity clearly-established-right standard to the merits of the substantive due process claims and improperly required a fundamental right for the procedural due process claims.
Remand instructions
The district court must reconsider the substantive due process claims under the Glucksberg framework, carefully and narrowly formulate the asserted fundamental right, parse the challenged policy's terms, reconcile the parties' litigation positions, and determine whether the asserted right is fundamental. It must separately consider whether Regino adequately alleged deprivation of a liberty interest for procedural due process purposes, regardless of whether that interest is fundamental, and must properly analyze the facial claims. Further proceedings must be consistent with the opinion.