The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a summary order on Jan. 16, 2026, in the case of A.A.C., et al. v. Starpoint Central School District, et al., marking the latest development in litigation involving student rights and school district policies.
The three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Guido Calabresi, Gerard E. Lynch, and Sarah A. L. Merriam presided over the case at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse in New York City. The summary order format indicates the court's decision does not establish binding precedent for future cases.
The plaintiffs in the case include A.A.C., T.C. ex rel. A.C., and G.C., suggesting the involvement of minor students represented through guardians or next friends. This naming convention typically appears in education law cases where students' identities are protected due to their age or the sensitive nature of the allegations.
The defendants named in the lawsuit include the Starpoint Central School District itself, along with numerous individual school officials sued in both their personal and official capacities. The individual defendants are Dr. Sean Croft, Maureen Braunscheidel, Dr. Alan Ingraham, Dr. Corey Gray, Dr. Thomas Szalkowski, Fran Anderson, John Andrews, and Vincent Dell'Oso. The complaint also includes unnamed "John Doe" defendants, indicating potential additional parties whose identities were unknown at the time of filing.
The dual capacity nature of the claims against individual defendants suggests the plaintiffs alleged both constitutional violations that could result in personal liability and policy-based claims against the officials in their institutional roles. This structure commonly appears in civil rights lawsuits filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows individuals to sue government officials for constitutional violations.
Representing the defendants-appellants are attorneys Michael P. McClaren from Gross Schuman, P.C. in Buffalo, and Meghan M. Hayes from Webster Szanyi LLP, also in Buffalo. The plaintiffs-appellees are represented by R. Anthony Rupp III from Rupp Pfalzgraf LLC in Buffalo, with Paul D. Jager listed on the brief, and Chad A. Davenport from Davenport Law PLLC in Hamburg, New York.
The case number 25-1316-cv indicates this matter originated in 2025 and involves civil litigation. The appellate nature of the proceedings suggests the case previously proceeded through the U.S. District Court system before reaching the Second Circuit.
Summary orders represent a significant portion of federal appellate court decisions, allowing courts to resolve cases efficiently without the extensive analysis required for precedential opinions. As noted in the court's standard disclaimer, summary orders filed after Jan. 1, 2007, may be cited in court documents but must include appropriate notation and service requirements.
The Second Circuit's jurisdiction covers New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, making it a key venue for education law matters affecting schools and students throughout the region. The court frequently handles cases involving student rights, special education disputes, Title IX matters, and First Amendment issues in educational settings.
While the specific legal issues and outcome in A.A.C. v. Starpoint Central School District remain unclear from the available court filing, the case structure suggests allegations of constitutional or statutory violations affecting student rights. The involvement of multiple officials from various levels of the school administration indicates the alleged conduct may have involved district-wide policies or practices.
The geographic concentration of legal representation in the Buffalo area reflects the Western New York location of Starpoint Central School District, which serves students in Niagara County. The district's involvement in federal litigation highlights the ongoing challenges school systems face in balancing educational objectives with legal compliance requirements.
Education law cases reaching the federal appellate level often involve complex questions regarding student rights, due process protections, equal protection claims, or First Amendment freedoms in school settings. The summary order format suggests the Second Circuit panel found the legal issues sufficiently straightforward to resolve without extensive written analysis.
The timing of the January 2026 decision places it within the current academic year, potentially affecting ongoing district operations and policies. School districts typically monitor federal court decisions closely for guidance on compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements affecting student services and disciplinary procedures.
Legal practitioners in education law will likely review the summary order for insights into current judicial attitudes toward student rights claims and institutional liability issues. While summary orders lack precedential value, they can provide guidance on how courts apply established legal principles to specific factual situations.
The case represents another example of the federal judiciary's role in overseeing public education institutions and ensuring compliance with constitutional protections for students. As education law continues to evolve, such litigation helps define the boundaries of permissible school district conduct and student rights protections.