Plaintiff A v. Park Hill School District, No. 23-1119 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Four ninth-grade football players at Park Hill High School in Kansas City, Missouri, were suspended or expelled after one of them created an online petition titled "Start Slavery Again" and the others posted comments favoring the petition. They filed a lawsuit against the Park Hill School District and various school officials, claiming that their rights to equal protection and due process were violated.
In their suit, the students argued that they were deprived of substantive and procedural due process in the disciplinary procedures. They also claimed that they were deprived of equal protection because another student, who they alleged was a willing participant in creating the petition, was not punished. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment for the school district, dismissing all of the students' claims.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court found that the students received adequate notice and meaningful opportunity to present their case in the school disciplinary proceedings, satisfying the requirements of due process. The court further held that the disciplinary actions taken by the school district were not so egregious as to violate the students' substantive due process rights. Lastly, the court rejected the students' equal protection claim on the basis that the student who was not punished was not similarly situated to the plaintiffs given their greater involvement in creating and supporting the petition.
Court Description: [Grasz, Author, with Smith and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff students were expelled or disciplined after one of them created an online petition calling for the return of slavery and the others posted online comments favoring the petition. They brought this action claiming the district violated their rights to equal protection and due process. The district court granted the school district's motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs appeal. Under the test established by Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), there was a low risk of erroneous deprivation of plaintiffs' interests because they received adequate notice and meaningful opportunities to be heard at every stage of the disciplinary process, and additional procedures would have unduly burdened the school district; in light of this, plaintiffs' procedural due process claims fail; with respect to their substantive due process claims, plaintiffs could not show a government violation of a fundamental constitutional right so egregious it shocks the contemporary conscience; with respect to plaintiffs' equal protection clause, the student to whom they seek to compare themselves did not have a similar level of involvement in the petition, and plaintiffs could not show the district's decision to punish them and not the other student was racially motivated; the district court did not err in granting the school district summary judgment on the equal protection claim. [ April 01, 2024 ]
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.