A.C. v. McKee

• Citation: 23 F.4th 37
• Decision Date: 11 January 2022
• Docket Number: No. 20-2082,20-2082
• Parties: A.C., a minor, BY her parent and guardian ad litem, Torrence S. WAITHE; A.C.C., a minor, by her parent and guardian ad litem, Nicolas Cahuec; A.F., a minor, by his parent and guardian ad litem, Aletha Forcier; R.F., a minor, by her parent and guardian ad litem, Aletha Forcier; I.M., a minor, by his parents and guardians ad litem Jessica Thigpen and Anthony Thigpen; L.M., a minor, by her parents and guardians ad litem Jessica Thigpen and Anthony Thigpen; K.N.M.R., a minor, by her parent and guardian ad litem, Marisol Rivera Pitre; J.R.H., a minor, by her parents and guardians ad litem, Moira Hinderer and Hillary Reser; M.S., a minor, by his parent and guardian ad litem, Mark Santow; M.M.S., a minor, by his parent and guardian ad litem, Amie Tay; M.S., a minor, by her parents and guardians ad litem, Maruth Sok and Lap Meas; A.W., a minor, by her parent and guardian ad litem, Chanda Womack; J.W., a minor, by her parent and guardian ad litem, Chanda Womack; N.X., a minor, by her parents and guardians ad litem, Youa Yang and Kao Xiong, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Daniel J. MCKEE, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Rhode Island; Nicholas A. Mattiello, in his official capacity as Speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives; Dominick J. Ruggerio, in his official capacity as President of the Rhode Island Senate; Rhode Island State Board of Education; Council on Elementary and Secondary Education; Angelica Infante-Green, in her official capacity as Commissioner of Education for the State of Rhode Island, Defendants, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

23 F.4th 37

A.C., a minor, BY her parent and guardian ad litem, Torrence S. WAITHE; A.C.C., a minor, by her parent and guardian ad litem, Nicolas Cahuec; A.F., a minor, by his parent and guardian ad litem, Aletha Forcier; R.F., a minor, by her parent and guardian ad litem, Aletha Forcier; I.M., a minor, by his parents and guardians ad litem Jessica Thigpen and Anthony Thigpen; L.M., a minor, by her parents and guardians ad litem Jessica Thigpen and Anthony Thigpen; K.N.M.R., a minor, by her parent and guardian ad litem, Marisol Rivera Pitre; J.R.H., a minor, by her parents and guardians ad litem, Moira Hinderer and Hillary Reser; M.S., a minor, by his parent and guardian ad litem, Mark Santow; M.M.S., a minor, by his parent and guardian ad litem, Amie Tay; M.S., a minor, by her parents and guardians ad litem, Maruth Sok and Lap Meas; A.W., a minor, by her parent and guardian ad litem, Chanda Womack; J.W., a minor, by her parent and guardian ad litem, Chanda Womack; N.X., a minor, by her parents and guardians ad litem, Youa Yang and Kao Xiong, Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.Daniel J. MCKEE,^* in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Rhode Island; Nicholas A. Mattiello, in his official capacity as Speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives; Dominick J. Ruggerio, in his official capacity as President of the Rhode Island Senate; Rhode Island State Board of Education; Council on Elementary and Secondary Education; Angelica Infante-Green, in her official capacity as Commissioner of Education for the State of Rhode Island, Defendants, Appellees.

No. 20-2082

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

January 11, 2022

Michael A. Rebell, with whom Center for Educational Equity, Teachers College, Columbia University, Jennifer L. Wood, Rhode Island Center for Justice, Samuel D. Zurier, and Stephen Robinson, and Robinson & Clapham, were on brief, for appellants.

Michael W. Field, Assistant Attorney General, with whom Andrea M. Shea and Keith Hoffmann, Special Assistant Attorneys General, were on brief, for appellees Daniel J. McKee, Nicholas A. Mattiello, and Domenick J. Ruggerio.

Anthony F. Cottone, Chief Legal Counsel, Rhode Island Department of Education, for appellees Rhode Island Board of Education, Council on Elementary and Secondary Education, and Angélica Infante-Green.

William T. Russell, Jr., David Elbaum, Jonathan T. Menitove, Nicholas L. Ingros, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP on brief for Professors Danielle Allen and Meira Levinson, amici curiae.

Yahonnes Cleary, Erin J. Morgan, Alexander F. Atkins, Carly Lagrotteria, David Fu, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP on brief for National Council for the Social Studies, amicus curiae.

Andrew M. Troop, Jeffrey P. Metzler, and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP on brief for National League of Women Voters, League of Women Voters of Rhode Island, and American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, amici curiae.

Robert M. Kline, Kristin A. Taylor, Carlos F. Ortiz, Michael W. Weaver, Dana McSherry, Annabel Rodriguez, McDermott Will & Emery, Jose Perez, Francisca D. Fajana, Miranda Galindo, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF on brief for LatinoJustice PRLDEF, et al., amici curiae.

Gilda Daniels, Jessica Alcantara, Ky'Eisha Penn, Advancement Project, Janette Louard, Anthony Ashton, Victor L. Goode, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Jeremy Karpatkin, Raqiyyah Pippins, Florence Bryan, Danielle Pingue, Saul P. Morgenstern, Jonathan Green, Peter L. Schmidt, Javier Ortega, and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP on brief for Advancement Project and NAACP, amici curiae.

Nowell D. Bamberger, Leila Mgaloblishvili, Tony J. Russo, and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP on brief for Generation Citizen and Mikva Challenge, amici curiae.

Yelena Konanova, Jordan W. Garman, and Selendy & Gay PLLC on brief for Professor Martha Minow, amicus curiae.

Michael M. Epstein, Julie K. Waterstone, and Amicus Project at Southwestern Law School on brief for Samantha M. Dennis, et al., amici curiae.

S. Elaine McChesney, Robert E. McDonnell, Elizabeth M. Bresnahan, Michael A. Hacker, and Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP on brief for Providence Youth Student Movement, et al., amici curiae.

Jeffrey A. Simes, Allison R. Klein, and Goodwin Procter LLP on brief for National Association for Media Literacy Education, et al., amici curiae.

Andrew J. Ceresney, Jillian L. Trezza, Amy C. Zimmerman, Erik Rubinstein, and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP on brief for The Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools, et al., amici curiae.

Before Howard, Chief Judge, Kayatta, Circuit Judge, and Casper,^** District Judge.

Casper, District Judge.

This appeal raises the question of whether Rhode Island's alleged failure to provide public school students with an adequate civics education can state a claim for violation of the students' constitutional rights. On behalf of a putative class of "all students attending public K-12 schools in Rhode Island ... who are not receiving a meaningful opportunity to obtain the degree of education that is necessary to prepare them to be capable voters and jurors, to exercise effectively their right of free speech, to participate effectively and intelligently in our open political system and to function productively as civic participants," several students ("Appellants" or "Students") brought an action for declaratory relief against the Governor and various Rhode Island officials and agencies ("Rhode Island") under the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the Republican Guarantee Clause of Art. IV, § 4 of the U.S. Constitution, all of which the district court dismissed.¹ A.C. v. Raimondo, 494 F. Supp. 3d 170, 175 (D.R.I. 2020). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

I.

Following a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss, we recite the facts as well-pleaded in the complaint. Zhao v. CIEE Inc., 3 F.4th 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2021). Appellants live in and attend (or will attend) public schools in Rhode Island, spanning preschool through twelfth grade, and allege that Rhode Island has failed to provide them with an education "adequate to prepare them to function productively as civic participants capable of voting, serving on a jury, understanding economic, social and political systems sufficiently to make informed choices, and to participate effectively in civic activities."

The Students point to several components of Rhode Island's approach to civics education that have caused the alleged failure. First, Rhode Island does not require any civics courses, although some high schools in more affluent districts offer elective civics courses, nor does the state mandate testing for civics knowledge at the high school level or report student performance in these subjects, unlike reading, math and science. Due to limited time and resources, schools thus focus on these mandatory subjects that are tested statewide. Second, Rhode Island's current civics curriculum falls short. It has not adopted the College, Career and Civic Life ("C3") framework for teaching civics, which various educators and policy organizations have endorsed. When courses do address civics concepts, the content is not as comprehensive as the C3 framework would provide. Moreover, current courses do not promote active classroom discussion of "controversial topics" and do not teach students media literacy to navigate today's digital world. Third, Rhode Island has neglected to update civics-related materials and access to digital resources, and to train and hire teachers and other personnel, including a statewide social studies specialist, in civics education. Fourth, schools provide limited opportunities for civic experiences, like student council, student newspapers and field trips, and civic learning, which combines community service with classroom discussions.

As to the effect of the lack of civics education, the Students cite national studies reporting a lack of civic knowledge, and a disinterest and lack of participation in civic life (e.g., voting and volunteering) among young Americans when compared to previous generations. They also point to the "civic empowerment gap" for many African American and Latino students and students from low-income families, citing demographic analysis of the results of civics knowledge testing done on a national sample of eighth graders.

II.

We review the district court's grant of Rhode Island's motion to dismiss de novo. Gaspee Project v. Mederos, 13 F.4th 79, 84 (1st Cir. 2021).

A.

The Students appeal the district court's conclusion that an adequate civics education is not a fundamental constitutional right, which was fatal to their Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection claims.² See A.C., 494 F. Supp. 3d at 193.

We turn first to the Supreme Court's precedent regarding the existence vel non of a fundamental right to education. Dating back at least to Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court has characterized education as "the most important function of state and local governments," and as the "very foundation of good citizenship," which is "required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities." San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 29-30, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973) (quoting Brown v. Bd. of Ed., 347 U.S. 483, 493, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954) ); see Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 221-23, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982) (noting Court's recognition of education as a vital civic institution for preservation of American democracy). Nevertheless, the Court has distinguished the relative importance of education and its role in society from the fundamental rights inquiry under the Fourteenth Amendment and looked to whether it was "explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution." Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 30, 33, 93 S.Ct. 1278 (citations omitted) (explaining that "the importance of a service performed by the State does not...