In Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools, 90 F.4th 34 (2d Cir. 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a rare en banc ruling, unanimously held that plaintiffs alleging discriminatory treatment in violation of Title IX had sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact for standing purposes. The court’s unanimous finding that the denial of equal opportunity in violation of an antidiscrimination statute is a cognizable injury in fact is significant and may encourage more discriminatory treatment claims in the future.

But the court diverged on a number of other standing issues, including redressability and availability of monetary damages, with the court issuing a total of eight opinions. The splintered nature of the court’s opinions illustrates the underlying tension between ensuring access to courts and enforcing appropriate limitations on judicial power.

Background

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]