{"id":413,"date":"2026-01-07T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-07T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=413"},"modified":"2026-01-07T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-07T12:00:00","slug":"rileys-american-heritage-farms-claremont-cd-cal-bench-trial-first-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=413","title":{"rendered":"Riley’s American Heritage Farms v. Claremont Unified School District \u2014 C.D. Cal. Enters Judgment for School District After Bench Trial on First Amendment Retaliation Field-Trip Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Riley’s American Heritage Farms v. Claremont Unified School District<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-07<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
5:18-cv-02185<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
First Amendment retaliation; Section 1983; school district policies; injunctive relief; bench trial findings of fact<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Riley’s American Heritage Farms (a working farm) and James Patrick Riley sued the Claremont Unified School District (CUSD) and 17 individuals under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983, alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment retaliation. The dispute arose from CUSD’s 2018 cancellation of all scheduled field trips to Riley’s Farm in response to parent complaints about Riley’s political speech on social media. The case had a long appellate history: the Ninth Circuit reversed initial summary judgments for the district twice, holding that genuine disputes remained as to whether an unconstitutional retaliatory policy persisted (Riley’s I in 2022; Riley’s II in 2024). On remand for the second time, the case was tried to the bench in September 2025, limited to whether an ongoing retaliatory policy exists and what prospective injunctive relief might be appropriate.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of CUSD, finding that plaintiffs had not proven by a preponderance of evidence that any ongoing retaliatory policy existed. The court found that CUSD’s post-2018 actions toward Riley’s Farm were explainable by neutral causes: California Education Code \u00a7 35350 prohibits transporting students for any field trip without parental consent, and many parents had withdrawn consent for Riley’s Farm specifically; CUSD’s Board Policy 6153 requires consideration of safety, curricular fit, and cost in approving field trips; and field trips across the board were dramatically curtailed during and after the COVID-19 pandemic due to budget pressures.<\/p>\n

Specifically, the court found that an October 2021 cancellation of a teacher’s requested Riley’s Farm field trip occurred during a period when CUSD was not scheduling field trips at all due to the pandemic. Field trips to other previously-regular destinations like the Los Angeles County Fair, the Aquarium of the Pacific, the Discovery Science Center, and the Museum of Tolerance had been similarly discontinued. The court entered judgment for the district.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n