Parker v. Town of Lexington
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 2070, 2008 WL 250375, 514 F.3d 87 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public school's exposure of young students to curriculum materials that are religiously offensive to their parents does not, without more, constitute a cognizable burden on the parents' or children's constitutional rights under the Free Exercise or Due Process Clauses, so long as the school does not coerce students into affirming beliefs contrary to their religion.
Facts:
- David and Tonia Parker's kindergarten son, Jacob, brought home a 'Diversity Book Bag' in January 2005 which included a book depicting families with same-sex parents.
- The Parkers, who hold religious beliefs that gay marriage is immoral, met with the school principal to request their son not be exposed to further discussions of homosexuality and to be given notice and an opt-out right.
- The school principal and later the superintendent, William Hurley, denied the Parkers' request, stating the school had no obligation to provide notice or an exemption for such materials.
- In the fall of 2005, Jacob's first-grade classroom included books like 'Who's in a Family?' and 'Molly's Family', which also featured same-sex parents.
- In March 2006, a teacher read the book 'King and King,' which depicts a wedding between two princes, to the second-grade class of Joseph and Robin Wirthlin's son, Joey.
- The Wirthlins, who share similar religious beliefs as the Parkers, also objected to the school, which reiterated its position that no prior notice or exemption would be given.
Procedural Posture:
- The Parkers and the Wirthlins (plaintiffs) filed suit on behalf of themselves and their children in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against school officials (defendants).
- The complaint alleged violations of their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and their Fourteenth Amendment due process right to parental autonomy.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- The U.S. District Court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the federal constitutional claims with prejudice.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First 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 refusal to provide parents with prior notice and an exemption from curriculum materials discussing same-sex parents and gay marriage, based on the parents' religious objections, violate the parents' fundamental rights under the Free Exercise and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Lynch, Circuit Judge
No. A public school's policy of teaching tolerance for diverse family structures, including those with same-sex parents, without providing a religious exemption does not violate parents' constitutional rights. The core of the Free Exercise Clause is protection from coercion, and merely exposing a child to ideas that a parent finds offensive does not constitute a constitutionally significant burden. The parents remain free to instruct their children in their own religious beliefs, and the children were not compelled to affirm any belief contrary to their religion. While parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children, this right does not extend to dictating the curriculum of a public school their child attends. The school's actions are a permissible effort to inculcate tolerance, not an unconstitutional indoctrination.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that parental rights under the Due Process Clause, while fundamental, are not absolute within the public school context. It establishes that parents do not have a constitutional right to tailor public school education to their personal religious or moral beliefs by demanding exemptions from specific curriculum. The court's analysis distinguishes between mere exposure to ideas, which is permissible, and religious coercion, which is not, setting a high bar for plaintiffs claiming a school's curriculum burdens their free exercise of religion. This decision significantly limits the reach of the 'hybrid rights' theory from Employment Division v. Smith, declining to apply strict scrutiny simply because a free exercise claim is paired with a parental rights claim.
