July 18, 2025, decisions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • M.K. v. Pearl River County School District, 24-60035, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Graves, Wilson), Title IX
    • Affirming summary judgment in favor of school district on middle school student’s Title IX deliberate-indifference sex-discrimination claim arising from bullying of student as “gay” by other students and from suspension of student after a bullying incident.
    • M.K., a student previously homeschooled, entered the Pearl River County School District for fifth grade and continued into sixth grade. Early in sixth grade, M.K. faced teasing and name-calling from several boys, some of whom called him “gay.” The harassment occurred in four of his classes, though two classes posed no problems. M.K. reported some incidents to teachers, who offered limited intervention such as telling students to stop or moving a classmate’s seat. In October 2021, following ongoing harassment, M.K. exposed his genitals to one of the boys in a restroom, later giving conflicting accounts about whether the act was intentional or accidental. The District suspended M.K. and required him to attend an alternative school for six weeks, which he refused. He and his father then filed suit against the District, claiming Title IX sex discrimination.
    • The district court granted summary judgment to the District, finding the alleged conduct did not meet Title IX’s standard for actionable harassment, which requires behavior that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive. Title IX prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex” in educational programs receiving federal funds. Under Supreme Court precedent, a school can be liable for peer harassment if it has actual knowledge, control over the harasser, and fails to respond to harassment that effectively denies access to education. However, courts have stressed that ordinary teasing, name-calling, and minor conflicts among children—even those involving gendered insults—do not meet this threshold. The Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and agreed with the district court that M.K. had not shown harassment severe enough to constitute sex discrimination.
    • The court emphasized that the teasing and bullying M.K. endured—though mean-spirited—occurred over a relatively short period and was comparable to behavior commonly found in middle schools. It contrasted M.K.’s situation with Title IX cases involving far more egregious and harmful conduct, such as harassment following sexual assaults or threats that led to severe psychological harm. Given the facts, the court concluded that M.K.’s allegations fell far short of the “strenuous standard” set by the Supreme Court for actionable Title IX claims. Therefore, the judgment in favor of the Pearl River County School District was affirmed.

Unpublished decisions

  • U.S. v. Edmond, 24-30255, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Elrod, King, Graves), criminal, sentencing
    • Finding plain error in the district court’s application of a career offender sentencing enhancement, vacating 262-month sentence on conviction of drug charges and remanding for resentencing.
  • Stinson v. Martinez, 24-30793, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Douglas, Ramirez), habeas corpus, mootness
    • Dismissing as moot appeal from denial of sec. 2241 petition, on basis that petitioner had earned early start of supervised release period under First Step Act.
  • U.S. v. Michalik, 24-50843, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Richman, Ramirez), criminal, sentence reduction
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from denial of motion for sentence reduction.
  • U.S. v. Soria, 24-51009, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Jones, Willett), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.