News

The 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the Lake Travis Independent School District’s policy governing background checks of visitors to its campuses.  The appellate court decision in Meadows v. Lake Travis ISD, was issued Wednesday.  Yvonne and Larry Meadows were parents of several children who attended school in the Lake Travis Independent School District.  In the fall of 2006, Mrs. Meadows was refused access to certain secured areas of her children’s elementary school under a new visitor’s policy known as Regulation FFF.  That regulation was implemented following an incident in which a sex offender gained access to a school in the district and exposed himself to a child.  It was designed to provide greater safety for students.  The regulation required all school visitors to present their driver’s license to determine whether they were registered sex offenders.  The school district used a visitor management system developed by Raptor Technologies, Inc. to implement the regulation.

The Meadows challenged the policy as a violation of their constitutional rights to speech, assembly, association, freedom from unreasonable search or seizure, privacy, procedural due process, and substantive due process, as well as various violations of state law.  The school district requested judgment in its favor on each of the Meadows’s claims and the trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of the district.  [See Meadows v. Lake Travis ISD, Dkt. No. A-08-CA-819-SS (W.D. Tex. 2009); Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest, Nov./Dec. 2009)]. The trial court also denied a request by the Meadows to reconsider its earlier ruling and assessed costs against the Meadows in the amount of $4,832.81.

On appeal to the 5^th Circuit, the Meadows’s main argument was that Regulation FFF violated their substantive due process right to direct their children’s education.  The court of appeals disagreed, holding that the Meadows failed to show that they had a fundamental right to access secure areas of the school.  The appeals court stated that “[w]e readily acknowledge that parents do have a constitutional right to direct their children’s education, but the Meadows have put forth no caselaw for the proposition that this right extends so far as to include the unfettered right of a parent to visit all areas of a school campus while students are present.”  Further, the record showed that the Meadows were not denied the ability to make fundamental decisions about their children’s education.

Even if the Meadows had a fundamental right to access all areas of the school, Regulation FFF did not violate that right.  The appeals court applied the “strict scrutiny” standard to this constitutional claim, requiring consideration of whether the district had a “compelling interest” in enforcing its policy and whether the policy was “narrowly tailored” to serve that interest. According to the appeals court, the district had a “compelling interest” in determining whether a potential visitor is a registered sex offender.  Further, the regulation was “narrowly tailored” because the Raptor system took only the minimum amount of information necessary to determine sex-offender status, identify the visitor, and ensure the lack of a false positive reading.

The court of appeals rejected the remaining claims as well.  The Meadows failed to show that they were denied procedural due process or that any restriction of Regulation FFF denied their First Amendment rights.  The right to privacy claims were without merit because they did not have a right to privacy in their driver’s licenses.  Further, there were adequate safeguards in place to ensure the privacy of the information.  The search and seizure claims likewise failed because any alleged search or seizure was reasonable under the circumstances. 

The court of appeals also upheld the trial court’s award of costs against the Meadows.  Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) there is a “strong presumption” that the prevailing party will be awarded costs.  The district was the prevailing party in this litigation and the Meadows failed to rebut that presumption or demonstrate that the costs were unreasonable.  The court of appeals upheld the judgment in favor of the district.

To view the 5^th Circuit decision, click here:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/09/09-50850.0.wpd.pdf