Stotts v. Community Unit School District No. 1, 1
| Citation | 230 F.3d 989 |
| Decision Date | 24 October 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 99-4284,T,1,99-4284 |
| Parties | (7th Cir. 2000) Jeffrey Stotts, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Community Unit School Districthomas F. Leahy, Mike Kindhart, et al., Defendants-Appellees |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 99 C 3308--Jeanne E. Scott, Judge.
Before Bauer, Evans, and Williams, Circuit Judges.
Jeffrey Stotts was suspended from his high school's basketball team because he got a tattoo in violation of a rule governing the personal appearance of boys basketball players. He challenged the constitutionality of the rule, and petitioned the district court for a preliminary injunction. Stotts now appeals the district court's decision to deny him injunctive relief. We dismiss the case on the ground that it is moot.
After a local disk jockey called the boys varsity basketball team a bunch of "peanut heads," the Board of Education for the Community Unit School District ("Board") issued "appearance guidelines," which only applied to members of the boys basketball team. These guidelines prohibited boys basketball players from having tattoos, body graffiti, and unnatural hair coloring, and addressed their uniforms and other appearance issues. The Board intended the regulation to "restore pride and team spirit and project a positive image of the team to the community." Before the basketball season began, the coaches discussed the new appearance policy with students who came to open gym.
Jeffrey Stotts, a senior who had been a member of the varsity basketball team since his freshman year, subsequently got a tattoo of a dragon on his back. His basketball uniform covered the tattoo unless another player pulled on his shirt. Pursuant to the appearance guidelines, the coach suspended Stotts from the basketball team for the first half of the season. The coach informed Stotts and his parents that Stotts would have to remove the tattoo before he could play with the team again. Stotts appealed his suspension to the Board, which upheld the coach's decision. The Board further notified Stotts that if he failed to have the tattoo removed by the second half of the season, he would be permanently suspended from the basketball team.
Stotts filed suit in the district court challenging the constitutionality of the appearance regulations. He alleged that the regulation and its enforcement violated his First Amendment right to free speech, his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection, and his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights. Stotts petitioned the district court for preliminary injunctive relief so that he could play basketball during his senior year of high school. The district court denied Stotts' petition, holding that he failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
While the appeal was pending before this Court, Stotts graduated from high school. Stotts asks this Court to reverse the district court decision.
The United States Constitution limits this Court's jurisdiction to live cases and controversies. See U.S. Const. art. III, sec. 2; Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982). "A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). The requirement that a case have an actual, ongoing controversy extends throughout the pendency of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Chi. v. Barr, Case No. 18 C 6859
...Adver. Indus. Representatives, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 326 F.3d 924, 929 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting Stotts v. Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 1, 230 F.3d 989, 990-91 (7th Cir. 2000)). One exception to this rule is when a defendant voluntary stops performing the challenged conduct after the commenc......
-
Smith v. City of Chi.
...that a case have an actual, ongoing controversy extends throughout the pendency of the action." Stotts v. Community Unit Sch. Dist. No. 1, 230 F.3d 989, 990 (7th Cir.2000). Last, Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, which are not rendered moot by the City's Agreement. See Buckhannon Bd. & ......
-
Donovan ex rel. Donovan v. Punxsutawney School Bd.
...("[Students'] claims for declaratory and injunctive relief generally become moot when they graduate."); Stotts v. Cmty. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 230 F.3d 989, 991 (7th Cir.2000) (holding that the "case lacks a live controversy [because the plaintiff] has graduated"); Cole v. Oroville Union High Sc......
-
Scott v. Westlake Servs., LLC
...of Christ v. City of Chi., 502 F.3d 616, 626 (7th Cir.2007) (quoting Powell, 395 U.S. at 496, 89 S.Ct. 1944);Stotts v. Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 1, 230 F.3d 989, 990 (7th Cir.2000) (quoting Powell, 395 U.S. at 496, 89 S.Ct. 1944);Timms on Behalf of Timms v. Metro. Sch. Dist. of Wabash Cnty.......
-
Ten Troubles with Title VII and Trait Discrimination Plus One Simple Solution (A totality of the Circumstances Framework)
...and Transcending Strict Scrutiny , 144 U. PENN. L. REV. 2417, 2418 (1997). 107 Id. at 2418. 108 See Stotts v. Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist., 230 F.3d 989 (7th Cir. 2000). 109 Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976). 110 See Catherine L. Fisk, Privacy, Power, and Humiliation at Work: Re-Examining A......