Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ellen “Ellie” Mae Fisher, a third-year Texas Tech University law student, was accused of celebrating Charlie Kirk’s assassination while working in the law school’s Family Law Clinic. After an investigation, the law school’s Honor Council concluded that Fisher had failed to uphold professional or fiduciary obligations and recommended a written reprimand. An associate dean denied her appeal.
Fisher sued university officials and members of the Texas Tech System Board of Regents under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination. She sought emergency relief preventing entry of the reprimand and annulling the disciplinary action. Before service was completed, however, the law school issued the reprimand, reported it to the Texas Board of Law Examiners, and recommended against her admission to the State Bar of Texas. Fisher then asked the court to require defendants to annul the discipline and tell the Board of Law Examiners that the outcomes had been retracted.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Fisher’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction because sovereign immunity barred the requested relief. Section 1983 does not abrogate Texas’s sovereign immunity, so Fisher could obtain official-capacity injunctive relief only through Ex parte Young, which permits prospective relief against state officials to stop ongoing or future violations of federal law.
The requested annulment and retraction were retrospective because they would invalidate completed disciplinary action and undo communications already sent to licensing authorities. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction to order that relief. It distinguished cases involving an ongoing suspension or an imminent disclosure of disciplinary information, reasoning that Texas Tech had already reprimanded Fisher and made the relevant reports. The ruling did not resolve the merits of Fisher’s constitutional allegations or foreclose her claims for damages against individual defendants.
Key Takeaways
- Ex parte Young does not permit a federal court to annul completed state disciplinary action merely because the requested order is framed as an injunction.
- Because Texas Tech had already issued the reprimand and reported it to licensing authorities, there was no ongoing or imminent official conduct encompassed by Fisher’s requested relief.
- The denial was jurisdictional and did not decide whether the discipline violated the First Amendment; Fisher may continue pursuing damages against individual defendants under Section 1983.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the distinction between prospective relief that stops an ongoing state action and retrospective relief that invalidates a completed one. Plaintiffs challenging discipline by a state university must identify both officials capable of providing relief and an ongoing or threatened violation that fits within Ex parte Young.
The court also left open the possibility that future actions—such as suspending Fisher or preventing her graduation—could support a different request for prospective relief, while emphasizing that no such action was then before it or shown to be forthcoming.