— In New York, the United States Court of Appeals held that the State of New York could sue the Niagara Wheatfield Central School District for failing to “address repeated complaints of student-on-student sexual assault, sexual harassment, and gender-based violence and bullying.” The case arose out of allegations by the New York Attorney General that “the School District’s lapses affected not only the student victims, but the School District’s community as a whole.” The lower court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the State of New York did not have authority to sue because “it had not successfully asserted that the School District engaged in a broader policy or practice of failing to protect student victims.” The State of New York appealed, describing “how four of the School District’s students were subjected to sexual assault, sexual harassment, or gender-based violence and bullying by other students; how the four student victims and their parents repeatedly notified the School District and requested remedial action; and how the School District consistently failed to respond adequately…(and how) the School District knew of, but ignored, at least thirty similar incidents.” The appellate court agreed and reversed the lower court. It held that “a state suing in parens patriae must establish (1) an injury to a sufficiently substantial segment of the state’s population; (2) a quasi-sovereign interest; and (3) an inability for individual plaintiffs to obtain complete relief.” As applied this case, the appellate court ruled that the State of New York “has adequately alleged that it is seeking to vindicate a quasi-sovereign interest—the health and welfare, of students exposed to gender-based violence and harassment whether as victims, perpetrators, or bystanders, and their families—and that the individuals on whose behalf it is bringing suit cannot obtain complete relief.” The appellate court explained that, “the School District’s failure to act allowed more and more students to turn into harassers. The broader alleged effects on the students in the School District—and, indeed, their parents—do not stop there… students had to contend with the fear that, if something comparable happened to them, the School District would also leave them unprotected.” New York, by James v. Niagara Wheatfield Central School District
— In Florida, officials in the Lake County Schools are implementing a new pilot program to “employ smart sensor detection devices in restrooms and nearby areas to enforce a strict no-vaping policy.” State law prohibits person under the age of 21 from possessing or using any tobacco products.
— In Utah, teachers and faculty in the Salt Lake City School District mounted a protest “over safety and security issues they say put them and students in danger.” “A student being shot on campus last month originally spurred the teachers into taking action… Teachers said they were only made aware of the shooting from a police press release and not by the district or school officials.”
— In Florida, legislation is being introduced that will require all teachers to “receive basic, uniform training on how to prevent and respond to school shootings.” House Bill 37 will “mandate that strategies and practices on identifying, preventing, preparing, addressing and responding to mass casualty incidents is included in all teacher and education preparation, certification and training programs.”