Leebaert v. Harrington
2003 WL 21363389, 332 F.3d 134 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to direct the upbringing and education of their child is not a fundamental right to exempt the child from a public school's mandatory, generally applicable curriculum. Therefore, such a curriculum requirement is subject to rational basis review, not strict scrutiny, even when challenged on both parental rights and free exercise grounds.
Facts:
- Turk Leebaert's son, Corky Leebaert, was a seventh-grade student at Roger Ludlowe Middle School, a public school in Fairfield, Connecticut.
- The school's curriculum included a mandatory health education program covering topics such as health and safety, nutrition, disease prevention, and substance abuse.
- The school permitted parents to opt their children out of six specific classes related to family life and AIDS education, but the remainder of the health curriculum was compulsory.
- In a letter, Leebaert informed the school superintendent, Carol Harrington, that he would be homeschooling his son on all health-related topics and that Corky would not attend any part of the health program.
- Leebaert objected to the curriculum based on his parental rights and his personal religious beliefs, stating that the school's approach to topics like drugs, self-esteem, and family structure contradicted his values.
- School officials advised Leebaert that while Corky could opt out of the designated classes, attendance at the other health classes was required.
- Corky Leebaert absented himself from all of the fourth-quarter health curriculum classes.
- As a result of his absences, Corky failed the health course.
Procedural Posture:
- Turk Leebaert filed a lawsuit against Carol Harrington and the Fairfield Board of Education in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
- Leebaert alleged violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment based on a set of stipulated facts.
- The district court (a federal trial court) granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied Leebaert's motion, and dismissed his federal claims with prejudice.
- Leebaert, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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's mandatory health curriculum violate a parent's fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their child under the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby triggering strict scrutiny review?
Opinions:
Majority - Sack, Circuit Judge.
No. The public school's mandatory health curriculum does not impinge on a parent's fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their child, and therefore it is not subject to strict scrutiny. The parental right established in cases like Meyer and Pierce protects the choice to pursue private education but does not grant parents a right to dictate the curriculum of the public school their child attends. This court rejects the arguments that a 'hybrid claim' combining free exercise and parental rights automatically triggers strict scrutiny, viewing the language in Employment Division v. Smith as non-binding dicta. Furthermore, this case is distinguishable from Wisconsin v. Yoder, as the mandatory curriculum does not threaten the existence of an entire religious way of life. Because no fundamental right is at stake, the curriculum is constitutional as long as it satisfies the rational basis test, which the plaintiff concedes it does.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the authority of public school districts to establish and enforce a mandatory curriculum over parental objections based on religious or philosophical grounds. It clarifies that the fundamental right of parents to direct their child's education primarily relates to the choice between public, private, or home schooling, not to controlling the content within a public school. The court's treatment of the 'hybrid rights' theory as dicta limits a potential avenue for plaintiffs to trigger strict scrutiny in cases involving the Free Exercise Clause, thereby strengthening the position of state and local governments in defending neutral, generally applicable regulations.
Unlock the full brief for Leebaert v. Harrington