The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit revived key portions of a constitutional challenge to South Carolina restrictions on race-related instruction in public schools, ruling that a lower court prematurely dismissed several claims for lack of standing. According to the appellate panel’s opinion authored by Judge G. Steven Agee, standing cannot be resolved by deciding the merits of unresolved First Amendment disputes, allowing the South Carolina NAACP and author Ibram X. Kendi to proceed with targeted claims against state education policies.
Revival of NAACP and Student Claims Over AP Curriculum
The Fourth Circuit determined that the South Carolina NAACP adequately alleged a concrete injury after state officials removed the Advanced Placement African American Studies course from the approved curriculum. Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, the panel found that the organization plausibly showed one identified student member had actually enrolled in the course before it was canceled, establishing an ongoing injury traceable to the challenged state policy.
District Judge Sherri A. Lydon had previously dismissed the lawsuit after concluding that none of the plaintiffs established Article III standing. The lower court reasoned that the students merely hoped to take the AP course in the future or, in one instance, had graduated, making their claims speculative or moot. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by the student whose allegations were too speculative and another whose graduation rendered her claims moot, but reversed the ruling regarding the student who had already enrolled.
Viewpoint Discrimination Challenge Involving Ibram X. Kendi Book
Author Ibram X. Kendi secured a path forward for his viewpoint discrimination claim arising from the removal of his book, Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You, from a South Carolina school district’s libraries. The Fourth Circuit held that Kendi plausibly alleged his book was pulled because school officials believed it conflicted with a state budget proviso barring public schools from using state funds to teach specified concepts concerning race and sex.
The district court previously ruled that Kendi’s injury was not redressable because the school district independently relied on state library selection criteria when removing the text. However, the Fourth Circuit concluded the lower court improperly resolved factual disputes that belonged to the merits stage of the litigation. The panel emphasized that whether the plaintiffs possess the asserted First Amendment rights is a separate question that should not be conflated with the threshold requirement of standing.
Legal Representation and Amicus Participation
The appellate arguments featured extensive representation from civil rights organizations and state legal offices. Charles Edward McLaurin of the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund argued the case for the appellants, supported by briefs from attorneys including Jin Hee Lee, Kacey Mordecai, and Jason P. Bailey of the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Kevin E. Jason, Tyler D. Bailey of the Bailey Law Firm, Debo P. Adegbile, Thais R. Ridgeway, and Molly Calhoon Silva of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.
Miles Edward Coleman and William A. Neinast of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP represented the appellees. State attorneys general also filed amicus curiae briefs representing the State of South Carolina through Attorney General Alan Wilson, Solicitor General Thomas Hydrick, and Joseph D. Spate, alongside officials from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, and Florida.
Fourth Circuit Procedural Disposition
The appellate panel ultimately affirmed the district court’s decision in part, reversed it in part, vacated it in part, and remanded the case with instructions for further proceedings. District Court for the District of South Carolina for additional litigation consistent with the Fourth Circuit’s findings on standing and First Amendment pleadings.
Worth a look