Posted September 25, 2013
In Kroupa v. Nielsen, et al, No. 12-2843 (8th Cir. Sept. 25, 2013), a three judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion that will be of interest to anyone involved in 4-H and similar agricultural youth programs in South Dakota and other states.  This post provides a brief overview of the Eighth Circuit decision, which was issued earlier today. Please check back with this blog as this item will be updated in the near future.   

To read the full opinion click here.

Future updates on this story will also be available via the Center’s Facebook and Twitter accounts.  Also, you can sign up to receive the Center eNewsletter and updates here.

In this case, plaintiff Greg Kroupa brought an action on behalf of his fifteen year old daughter – “B.K.” – against defendants Peter A. Nielsen, Assistant Director of 4-H Youth Development, and Rod Geppert, Brule County Extension 4-H representative.   Kroupa brought the lawsuit after B.K. received a letter from the South Dakota State University Cooperative Extension Service that stated that she was prohibited from showing livestock at future 4-H exhibitions.  Or, as the Eighth Circuit explained, “[g]iving no notice or opportunity to be heard, a secret committee of the South Dakota State University . . . Cooperative Extension Service barred B.K. . . . from further showing livestock at 4-H exhibitions.”  In particular, the letter stated that the prohibition was punishment for B.K. having misrepresented the ownership of her winning swine entry “Moe” at the 2011 South Dakota State Fair.  Following the 2011 State Fair, “several members of B.K.’s 4-H club accused her of cheating, claiming the pig she showed at the State Fair was not Moe another belted barrow swine with a cauliflower ear that had come from another state fair.”

At trial, Kroupa testified that neither he nor his daughter were notified of the meeting discussing the allegations of cheating and, therefore, did not have the opportunity to respond to the allegations.  Kroupa filed a lawsuit against the defendants, arguing that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 had been violated.  The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota granted Koupa’s request for a preliminary injunction against the defendants’ decision, which was appealed to the Eighth Circuit. 

For reasons that will be included in an update to this blog post, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the federal district court’s issuance of the preliminary injunction. In reaching its decision, the Eighth Circuit concluded:

 

The district court explicitly weighed the competing educational and financial harm to B.K. if she was not allowed to compete and ultimately prevailed on the merits at the end of protracted litigation, against the harm to 4-H and the public interest if a preliminary injunction was granted and it is ultimately determined that B.K. was allowed to compete for prizes to which she was not entitled. . . . This weighing was within the sound discretion of the district court.  We add two observations.  First the damage to B.K.’s reputation from this defamatory state action overwhelms the balance-of-harms factor.  Being publicly labeled a cheat by a well-respected government institution without a chance to be heard would be devastating to anyone, and certainly to a teenager committed to benefitting from 4-H membership and activities.  Second, the injunction by its terms lasts “until further order of the court.” It remains within defendants’ discretion to promptly give B.K. whatever “process is due,” rather than await a final disposition of Kroupa’s procedural due process claim on the merits, if in defendants’ view that would best serve the public interest in 4-H government-sponsored activities.

 

Share: