MaryJo Miller v. Jeff Mitchell

School officials discovered photographs of naked female students on students’ cell phones and learned that male students had been trading the images. George Skumanick, the district attorney, who was later replaced by Jeff Mitchell (defendant), wrote to the parents of photographed students and students whose phones contained photographs threatening to prosecute students who did not participate in an “education” program. A program objective was that female participants gain an understanding of what it meant to be a girl in today’s society. Students would be required to write a report explaining what they did, why it was wrong, whether they created a victim, and, if so, how their actions affected the victim, school, and community. MaryJo Miller, Jamie Day, and Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of their daughters (plaintiffs) brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enjoin Skumanick from prosecuting their daughters in retaliation for refusing to attend the education program. The suit alleged violations of the parents’ Fourteenth Amendment right to parental autonomy and the students’ First Amendment right against compelled speech. The district court granted preliminary injunctive relief. Skumanick appealed. While the appeal was pending, Skumanick decided to file charges only against Jane Doe’s daughter Nancy. Although a photograph of Nancy wrapped in a towel just below her breasts was found on Nancy’s classmates’ phones, there was no evidence that Nancy possessed or distributed the photo.