6th Circuit amends ruling on nominal damages claim in student speech case
The 6th Circuit has reversed a portion of its earlier ruling in favor of a student who sued the Board of Education of Boyd County, Kentucky for suppressing his speech opposing homosexuality. The school changed its policy after the Alliance Defense Fund filed suit, but a claim for nominal damages remained pending.
Earlier ADF press releases reporting on the case are here including this one: 6th Circuit rules in favor of Boyd County student, reinstates free speech case.
In its amended opinion, the 2-1 panel holds that the claim for nominal damages brought by the student should be disallowed. Judge Moore delivered a dissenting opinion.
The case is Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd Co., No. 08a0146a (6th Cir. April 9, 2008)(available on Findlaw).
The majority opinion by Judge Cook joined by Judge Adams begins:
COOK, Circuit Judge. This panel heard arguments in the matter before us on July 25, 2007, after which we filed an opinion, Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, 507 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2007), reversing the judgment of the district court and remanding for further proceedings.
Subsequently, the Board of Education of Boyd County (the “Board”) filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Review of the briefs and record counsels us to reconsider our previous holding, and as a result we vacate and amend Sections III and IV of the prior opinion. We now affirm the district court’s decision and set forth our opinion, as amended, below.
In this appeal, Timothy Morrison (“Morrison”) challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Board. Morrison is a student at Boyd County High School (“BCHS”). He is a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin. He further believes that part of his responsibility as a Christian is to tell others when their conduct does not comport with his understanding of Christian morality. During the 2004–05 academic year, BCHS had a written policy prohibiting students from making stigmatizing or insulting comments regarding another student’s sexual orientation. Wary of potential punishment, Morrison remained silent with respect to his personal beliefs, but challenged in federal court the Board’s right to stifle his speech.
After Morrison filed this lawsuit, the Board changed the BCHS policy, but Morrison’s litigation did not end. We must now decide whether Morrison’s claim for nominal damages premised upon a “chill” on his speech during the 2004–05 school year presents a justiciable controversy. We conclude that it does not, and accordingly AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Board.