Citizens for Quality Educ. San Diego v. Barrera
333 F.Supp.3d 1003 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public school district's anti-bullying program that specifically focuses on a particular religious group does not violate the Establishment Clause if it has a legitimate secular purpose, its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and it does not create excessive government entanglement with religion.
Facts:
- In July 2016, the San Diego Unified School District Board approved an "Anti-Islamophobia Initiative" to create a plan to address the bullying of Muslim students, citing national trends and a survey from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
- In April 2017, the District adopted "Action Steps" to implement the initiative, which included reviewing school calendars to recognize Muslim holidays, providing resources on Ramadan, and exploring a formal partnership with CAIR.
- Following a recommendation from CAIR, the District purchased several books about Muslim culture and experiences for school libraries.
- After public backlash and the filing of a lawsuit, the District in July 2017 adopted a "Revised Policy."
- The Revised Policy reframed the program's goal to ensure the safety of all students, directed staff to create a multi-faith holiday calendar, and explicitly redirected staff away from forming a formal partnership with CAIR.
- Subsequently, the District entered into a formal partnership with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for its "No Place for Hate" program.
- The District also established an "Intercultural Relations Community Council" to receive input from representatives of various faiths and cultures, including CAIR.
Procedural Posture:
- Citizens for Quality Education San Diego and other plaintiffs sued members of the San Diego Unified School District Board in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
- The initial complaint, and later a First Amended Complaint, alleged that the District's Anti-Islamophobia Initiative violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and other constitutional and statutory provisions.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to enjoin the District from implementing the Initiative, partnering with CAIR, and using CAIR-recommended materials pending the final outcome of the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public school district's anti-bullying initiative, which specifically aims to address Islamophobia and the bullying of Muslim students and involves consultation with an Islamic advocacy group, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Bashant
No, the school district's anti-bullying initiative does not violate the Establishment Clause. A government action does not violate the Establishment Clause if it has a secular purpose, its primary effect does not advance religion, and it does not result in excessive government entanglement with religion. The court applied the Lemon test to reach its conclusion. First, the Initiative has a clear secular purpose: protecting students from bullying and promoting a safe educational environment, which is a compelling government interest. The focus on Islamophobia was a sincere response to perceived increases in bullying against Muslim students. Second, the Initiative's primary effect is not to advance or endorse Islam. From the perspective of a reasonable observer, the program's actions are educational and protective, not religious. Any benefit to Muslim students is incidental to the secular goal of creating a tolerant school environment for all. Third, the District's relationship with CAIR does not constitute excessive entanglement. The District explicitly rejected a formal partnership, retained final control over all materials, and consulted with CAIR as one of many community groups in a broader intercultural council, thereby avoiding any delegation of governmental power.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that a government entity, such as a school district, can implement programs targeting specific forms of identity-based harassment without necessarily violating the Establishment Clause. It establishes that focusing on a particular religious group experiencing discrimination is not an automatic constitutional violation, provided the program's purpose and effect remain secular. The ruling provides a roadmap for schools on how to address specific bullying issues while navigating constitutional limitations, highlighting the importance of maintaining ultimate control over curriculum and ensuring that any collaboration with religious organizations does not amount to an endorsement or delegation of governmental authority.
