Combs v. Homer-Center School Dist.
| Citation | 540 F.3d 231 |
| Decision Date | 21 August 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-3093.,No. 06-3094.,No. 06-3095.,No. 06-3091.,No. 06-3090.,No. 06-3092.,06-3090.,06-3091.,06-3092.,06-3093.,06-3094.,06-3095. |
| Parties | Mr. Darrell COMBS; Mrs. Kathleen Combs, Appellants at No. 06-3090, v. HOMER-CENTER SCHOOL DISTRICT; Joseph F. Marcoline, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Homer-Center School District; Titusville Area School District; Bristol Township School District; Franklin Regional School District (D.C. Civil Action No. 04-cv-1599). Dr. Thomas Prevish; Timari Prevish, Appellants at No. 06-3091, v. Norwin School District, Richard Watson, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Norwin School District (D.C. Civil Action No. 04-cv-1670). Dr. Mark Newborn; Mrs. Maryalice Newborn, Appellants at No. 06-3092. v. Franklin Regional School District; Stephen Vak, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Franklin Regional School District (D.C. Civil Action 04-cv-1932). Mr. Thomas Hankin; Mrs. Babette Hankin, Appellants at No. 06-3093, v. Bristol Township School District; Regina Cesario, in her official capacity as Superintendent of Bristol Township School District (D.C. Civil Action 04-cv-1936). Mr. Douglas Nelson; Mrs. Shari Nelson, Appellants at No. 06-3094, v. Titusville Area School District; John D. Reagle, in his official capacity as Acting Superintendent of Titusville Area School District (D.C. Civil Action 05-cv-0070). Rev. Steven Weber; Mrs. Meg Weber, Appellants at No. 06-3095, v. DuBois Area School District; Sharon Kirk, in her official capacity as Superintendent of DuBois Area School District (D.C. Civil Action 05-cv-0203). |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
Paul N. Lalley, Esquire (Argued), Levin Legal Group, P.C. Huntingdon Valley, PA, Attorney for Appellees, Bristol Township School District, Regina Cesario, in her official capacity as Superintendent of Bristol Township School District.
Michael L. Brungo, Esquire, Ronald R. Lucas, Jr., Esquire, Alfred C. Maiello, Esquire, Maiello Brungo & Maiello, LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, Attorneys for Appellees, Norwin School District, Richard Watson, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Norwin School District, DuBois Area School District, Sharon Kirk, in her official capacity as Superintendent of DuBois Area School District.
Christopher C. Lund, Esquire, Dechert LLP Philadelphia, PA, Attorney for Amicus Curiae-Appellant, American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania.
Ann G. St. Ledger, Esquire, Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania Department of Education, Harrisburg, PA, Attorney for Amicus Curiae-Appellee, Pennsylvania Department of Education.
Sean A. Fields, Esquire, Pennsylvania School Boards Association Mechanicsburg, PA, Attorney for Amicus Curiae-Appellee, Pennsylvania School Boards Association.
Jeffrey I. Pasek, Esquire, Cozen & O'Connor, Philadelphia, PA, Attorney for Amicus Curiae-Appellee, Jewish Social Policy Action Network.
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, AMBRO and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
At issue is whether certain parents who home-school their children must comply with the reporting and review requirements of Pennsylvania's compulsory education law. Compliance, the parents contend, would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania demurs, contending its compulsory education law neither substantially burdens the free exercise of religion nor transgresses neutral application to all citizens, and serves an important state interest in ensuring a minimal level of education for all children.
Plaintiffs appeal from the grant of summary judgment for defendants in an action seeking declaratory relief and an injunction prohibiting enforcement of 24 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 13-1327.1 ("Act 169") and prosecution under Pennsylvania's compulsory education laws. Defendants are school districts in Pennsylvania and superintendents named in their official capacity.1 Plaintiffs are six families who home-school their children.2
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's education system, as enacted by the General Assembly, allows parents to satisfy the compulsory attendance requirement through "home education programs." Parents supervising the home education programs must provide instruction for a minimum number of days and hours in certain subjects and submit a portfolio of teaching logs and the children's work product for review. The local school district reviews the home education programs for compliance with the minimum hours of instruction and course requirements and determines whether each student demonstrates progress in the overall program. The school district does not review the educational content, textbooks, curriculum, instructional materials, or methodology of the program.
Parents, who home-school their children based on their sincerely held religious beliefs, have sued their respective school districts and school superintendents. Parents contend the Act 169 record-keeping requirements and the subsequent portfolio review place a substantial burden on their free exercise of religion. They seek an exemption from the Act 169 requirements and request declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that the provisions of Act 169 violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act ("RFPA"), 71 Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 2401-2407.
Parents have home-schooled their children for many years. All six families are Christians, but of different denominations. They hold in common a religious belief that "education of their children, not merely the religious education, is religion" and that God has assigned religious matters to the exclusive jurisdiction of the family. Accordingly, because God has given Parents the sole responsibility for educating their children, the school districts' reporting requirements and "discretionary review" over their home education programs violate their free exercise of religion.
In 2002, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania passed the Religious Freedom Protection Act. The statute requires the Commonwealth to justify substantial burdens on religious free exercise with a compelling interest and a showing that the least restrictive means has been employed to satisfy that interest. Prior to the passage of the Religious Freedom Protection Act, many of the Parents complied with the Act 169 home education program requirements.3 Pre-RFPA, there is no evidence that the school districts ever questioned or interfered with Parents' home education programs' educational content, methodology, curriculum, or materials. On some occasions, the school districts required Parents to supplement their logs and portfolios with additional information. But Parents are unable to identify an instance in which the school districts rejected any part of their home education program.
Nevertheless, post-RFPA, Parents notified the school districts that Act 169 substantially burdens their free exercise of religion and sought an exemption from compliance.4 The school districts refused to grant Parents an exemption from Act 169 and threatened or, in some cases, initiated criminal prosecutions for truancy.
In response, Parents sued the school districts in various state and federal courts seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and RFPA. Ultimately, the cases ended up before the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, which consolidated the six cases for pre-trial and summary judgment purposes. Upon consent of the parties, discovery was limited to "threshold legal issues" such as whether Act 169 substantially burdened Parents' free exercise of religion under the RFPA and the proper standard of review for Parents' federal constitutional claims. The District Court engaged in two rounds of summary judgment motions.
The first round addressed facial challenges to Act 169. Parents filed a consolidated motion for summary judgment and the school districts filed a consolidated opposition, but did not file a cross-motion for summary judgment. The District Court denied Parents' motion. Combs v. Homer Ctr. Sch. Dist., 2005 WL 3338885 (W.D.Pa. Dec.8, 2005). In the second round, the school districts filed a motion for summary judgment addressing both Parents' facial and "as applied" challenges to Act 169. The District Court granted the school districts' motion, concluding that (1) Parents failed to prove a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion, as defined by RFPA, Combs v. Homer Ctr. Sch. Dist., 468 F.Supp.2d 738, 771 (W.D.Pa.2006), and (2) Act 169 is a neutral law of general applicability, satisfying rational basis review,5 id. at 777. As a result, the District Court did not decide issues of compelling governmental interest or least restrictive means.6
The Pennsylvania Constitution mandates that the General Assembly "provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education to serve the needs of the Commonwealth." Pa. Const.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E.O.H.C. v. Barr
...v. Dodd , 352 F.3d 820, 827 (3d Cir. 2003). Indeed, a right can be both fundamental and limited. See Combs v. Homer-Center Sch. Dist. , 540 F.3d 231, 247 (3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam ). In the "context of parental liberty interests, this limitation means that the Due Process Clause only prote......
-
Fulton v. City of Phila.
......Fisher, Brian H. Fletcher, Pamela S. Karlan, Stanford Law School, Supreme Court, Litigation Clinic, Stanford, CA, Yaira Dubin, O'Melveny & ...So have five sitting Justices. Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist. , 586 U. S. ––––, –––– – ––––, 139 S.Ct. 634, ...They are divided into at least three camps. See Combs v. Homer-Center School Dist. , 540 F.3d 231, 244–247 (C.A.3 2008) ......
-
Brown v. City of Pittsburgh
...... Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J. v. Stafford Twp. Sch. Dist., 386 F.3d 514, 524 (3d Cir.2004). "Although we normally will not disturb ... Combs v. Homer-Center Sch. Dist., 540 F.3d 231, 242 (3d Cir.2008) (per curiam) ......
-
A.A. By v. Needville Indep. Sch. Dist.
......NEEDVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant. . . Civil Action No. H-08-2934. United States District Court, . S.D. Texas, . ... . Combs v. Homer-Center School District, 540 F.3d 231, 248 (3rd Cir.2008). In . Combs, the Third ......
-
Legal Constraints on Child-Saving: The Strange Case of the Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints at Yearning for Zion Ranch
...Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432, 435 (Tex. 1994). 278 TEX. FAM. CODE. § 261.101 (Vernon 2008). 279 Combs v. Homer-Center Sch. Dist., 540 F.3d 231, 235 & n.5 (3rd Cir. 2008). 2008] LEGAL CONSTRAINTS ON CHILD-SAVING 409 to keep the child in “regular contact with mandated reporters of abuse a......
-
WHEN PLAY BECOMES WORK: CHILD LABOR LAWS IN THE ERA OF "KIDFLUENCERS".
...within the home, the question of on-set teachers for at-home influencers is also unclear. See, e.g., Combs v. Homer-Ctr. Sch. Dist., 540 F.3d 231, 247 (3d Cir. 2008) ("[T]he right to be free from all reporting requirements and 'discretionary' state oversight of a child's home-school educati......