Constitutional – Suit over abuses in West Virginia foster care system is reinstated

Where the district court dismissed a class action suit filed by children suing over abuses and rights violations within the foster care system, reasoning it was powerless to provide the injunctive relief sought, it erred.

Background

Twelve children in foster care filed a class action complaint against five defendants, alleging abuses and rights violations within the foster care system. In 2023, the district court dismissed the case, first finding that the claims of adopted plaintiffs were moot, then holding that it was barred from consideration of this case under Younger and its progeny. This court reversed on appeal, holding that neither abstention nor mootness principles precluded federal court review.

Upon remand, the district court certified plaintiffs’ proposed general class and one subclass, but denied certification to the two other subclasses. The parties proceeded with extensive document discovery. In February 2025, the district court, sua sponte, dismissed the case with prejudice for lack of standing, concluding that it was powerless under the limitations inherent to Article III of the Constitution to provide the injunctive remedies plaintiffs sought.

Redressability

This court’s test for redressability assesses whether the court has the power to grant the plaintiff’s requested relief and whether such relief would redress the plaintiff’s injury. The district court ended the inquiry at step one when it concluded it was powerless to order the relief plaintiffs seek. In so holding, it erred.

Precedent establishes a lengthy history of institutional reform decrees in the federal court system spanning most of the last century. Modern, binding authority affirms the use of comprehensive institutional reform. The courts may enact expansive reforms including the judicial authority to direct the use of state funds, provided the court follows the guardrails that the Supreme Court has established. Plaintiffs’ requests fall well within the boundaries of lawful injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief would redress their alleged injuries. The allegations of long-term, widespread neglect offer sufficient reason to believe such problems will continue. Plaintiffs accordingly request a variety of injunctive measures that are likely to alleviate at least some of their suffering.

Injury in fact

There is no dispute on appeal that plaintiffs have alleged past physical and psychological injuries to their constitutional and statutory rights with sufficient specificity. But past injuries with ongoing harm nevertheless suffice to establish standing. The pleadings allege uncured systemic policy failures that place children in positions where they suffer ongoing constitutional and statutory rights deprivations.

Reassignment

Plaintiffs request reassignment to a new district judge. Despite the district court’s legal error, none of the relevant criteria suggest the public interest would be better served by reassignment. This court finds no indication that the district judge would have substantial difficulty setting aside previously expressed erroneous views. Reassignment would also waste judicial resources, especially in light of the lengthy history of this case.

Cross-appeal

West Virginia filed a conditional cross-appeal to seek class decertification. Because of this court’s reversal of the district court’s dismissal, there is no longer a final judgment. Because the timeframe to challenge class certification pursuant to Rule 23(f) has elapsed, this court may not entertain this cross-appeal until a final judgment is entered below.
Reversed and remanded.

Concurring/dissenting opinion

Rushing, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part:

I agree with the majority that we must reverse the district court’s judgment dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction. I would exercise our discretion to consider the cross-appeal and resolve West Virginia’s arguments about the infirmities in the class certification order. In that respect, I dissent from the majority’s judgment.

Jonathan R. v. Morrisey, Case Nos. 25-1232, 25-1239, June 4, 2026. 4th Cir. (Floyd), from SDWVA at Huntington (Goodwin). Laura Welikson for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Michael Ray Williams for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. VLW 026-2-202. 57 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-2-202