1. As the panel in this case recognized, the Fifth Circuit is an outlier (against nine others) in holding that a public school student cannot bring a Section 1983 substantive due process claim (or any other claim) arising from excessive force or violence as punishment in the educational setting (no matter how gratuitous or egregious) as long as some state mechanism exists (judicial or otherwise, compensatory or not) for potentially addressing the educator's misconduct. "Other [circuit] courts have scrutinized" this rule. App. A at 10 (citing criticism by the Eleventh and Ninth Circuits). And for good reason. As recognized by Fifth Circuit Judge Wiener, other dissenters, and other courts of appeals for decades, the Fifth Circuit's rule erroneously imports an aspect of this Court's procedural due process jurisprudence into a substantive due process analysis. E.g., T.O. v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., 2 F.4th 407, 419 (5th Cir. 2021) (Wiener & Costa, JJ., specially concurring) (explaining that the Fifth Circuit is "isolated in its position" against nine other circuits and calling for the court to reconsider its rule); Moore v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist., 233 F.3d 871, 876-877 (5th Cir. 2000) (Wiener, J., concurring) (same); Ingraham v. Wright, 525 F.2d 909, 924 (5th Cir. 1976) (en banc) (Rives, Goldberg, & Ainsworth, JJ., dissenting) (dissenting from the Fifth Circuit's adoption of the rule). As those dissenters have explained, the Fifth Circuit's rule is irreconcilable with this Court's precedent because the rule elides the distinction between procedural due process and substantive due process, under the latter of which the existence of state remedies is irrelevant. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 118, 125 (1990).

2. As recognized by Judge Wiener, the circuits are also split (eight to two) on the more fundamental question of "[w]hich constitutional rights are violated by excessive corporal punishment" by public school officials. T.O., 2 F.4th at 419 n.2 (Wiener & Costa, JJ., specially concurring). "The [Second,] Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh circuits analyze such claims under the Fourteenth Amendment and require a student to demonstrate that the punishment 'shocked the conscience' in order to prevail." Id. (collecting cases). "The Seventh and Ninth Circuits, in contrast, consider corporal punishment to constitute a 'seizure' and thus ask whether the punishment was objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment." Id. (collecting cases).

Question not identified.