A.N.A. Breckinridge County Board of Education

833 F. Supp. 2d 673 (2011)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

A.N.A. Breckinridge County Board of Education

United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
833 F. Supp. 2d 673 (2011)

Facts

A.N.A. (plaintiff) and a class of students filed a lawsuit against the Breckinridge County Board of Education (the board) (defendant). The lawsuit challenged the lawfulness of a local public middle school’s program that allowed all students to choose whether they wanted to be educated in a class with the same sex or in a coeducational classroom. The board moved for the dismissal of A.N.A. and the other class representatives for lack of standing. A.N.A. attempted to show an actual injury by arguing that all of the middle school’s students were injured by having to attend a school that practiced sex discrimination by offering a program that enabled boys and girls to attend single-sex classes. However, A.N.A. did not offer any facts to show that the students had suffered harm to a legally protected interest that was concrete and particularized because of the option to attend single-sex classes. Unlike the case with educating public school students by race, which the Supreme Court had ruled inherently harmful, there was no prior ruling that supported the notion that giving children an option to be educated in a single-sex environment was per se injurious or unconstitutional. Prior Supreme Court cases had held that excluding students from an educational program based on sex without sufficient justification, such as not allowing female students to attend a state-funded men-only military academy or not allowing men to attend a publicly funded nursing school, violated a legally protected interest. Although A.N.A. and the class representatives alleged such exclusion and discrimination because boys could not attend the all-girls classes and girls could not attend the all-boys classes, the record indicated that all students were permitted to attend coeducational classes.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Simpson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership