## Facts

- Fuerbringer Elementary School, within the School District of Saginaw (Saginaw), used a lunch-period disciplinary Policy #1 during the 1986–87 school year.
- Under Policy #1, a student who misbehaved two or more times during a lunch period could be temporarily suspended from the lunch period. Because the student was excluded from the lunch period, the student could not receive a government-subsidized lunch.
- Parents of three Fuerbringer students complained to Saginaw about Policy #1.
- Saginaw replaced Policy #1 with Policy #2. Under Policy #2, a student who misbehaved three or more times could be suspended from the lunch period.
- Policy #2 permitted a suspended student to eat the school lunch only if a supervising parent attended. If a parent did not attend and did not provide a sufficient reason, the student was sent home and did not receive the subsidized lunch.
- The parents, on behalf of their children, filed a class action challenging Policies #1 and #2, alleging the policies violated the National School Lunch Act (NSLA) and the Child Nutrition Act (CNA) by using the denial of subsidized meals as punishment. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- After the lawsuit was filed, Saginaw temporarily implemented Policy #3. Under Policy #3, students who would have been punished under Policy #2 were instead given full-day suspensions, meaning any missed subsidized lunch occurred as a result of the all-day suspension rather than an express lunch denial.
- The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and concluded Policies #1 and #2 violated the NSLA and CNA because they directly deprived eligible students of subsidized meals as discipline.
- In reaching that conclusion, the district court relied on the United States Department of Agriculture’s interpretation that direct denial of a subsidized meal as discipline is unlawful, while discipline that only incidentally results in a missed meal (such as an all-day suspension) is not inconsistent with the statutes.
- Consistent with that interpretation, the plaintiffs acknowledged (and the district court agreed) that Policy #3 did not violate the NSLA or CNA.
- Saginaw appealed, arguing that because the challenged policies had been replaced and the plaintiffs conceded the current policy was lawful, the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing for the prospective relief requested.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief concerning discontinued lunch-denial discipline policies when the school district had replaced them and the plaintiffs alleged no ongoing or imminent risk of the same injury.
2. Whether entry of declaratory (and related injunctive) relief regarding withdrawn policies would likely redress any injury to the named plaintiffs.
3. Whether the case could proceed on a class basis if the named plaintiffs lacked standing for the prospective relief sought.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment granting relief to the plaintiffs.
- The court held the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to obtain prospective declaratory or injunctive relief because the challenged lunch-denial policies were no longer in effect and the plaintiffs did not show a real and immediate threat that the policies would be reinstated.
- The court concluded that a declaration regarding Policies #1 and #2 would not redress a present injury where the operative policy (Policy #3) was conceded to be lawful and any harm from past lunch denials could not be remedied by forward-looking relief.
- The court determined that class certification did not cure the absence of standing by the named plaintiffs for the relief sought, and the federal courts therefore lacked jurisdiction to provide the requested prospective relief.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing requires an injury in fact that is actual or imminent (not conjectural), a causal connection to the challenged conduct, and a likelihood that the requested relief will redress the injury.
- When a plaintiff seeks declaratory or injunctive relief, past exposure to allegedly unlawful conduct is not enough; the plaintiff must show a real and immediate threat of future injury.
- A request for a declaration about a superseded policy, without a non-speculative risk of recurrence, asks the federal courts to issue an advisory opinion, which Article III forbids.
- In a class action, the named plaintiffs must have standing for each form of relief sought; the class mechanism cannot supply jurisdiction where the named plaintiffs lack standing.

## Conclusion

In Heimberger v. School District of Saginaw, the Sixth Circuit set aside the district court’s merits ruling that the district’s earlier lunch-period discipline policies violated the NSLA and CNA, holding instead that the plaintiffs lacked standing for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief because Saginaw had replaced the challenged policies and the plaintiffs did not face an imminent, non-speculative risk of again being denied a subsidized lunch under those withdrawn rules.


Heimberger v. School District of Saginaw, 881 F.2d 242 (1989)