Moss v. Spartanburg County Sch. Dist. No. 7
| Decision Date | 05 April 2011 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. 7:09–1586–HMH. |
| Citation | 775 F.Supp.2d 858,269 Ed. Law Rep. 531 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | Robert MOSS, individually and as general guardian of his minor child; Ellen Tillett, individually and as a general guardian of her minor child; The Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.; Melissa Moss, Plaintiffs,v.SPARTANBURG COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 7, a South Carolina body politic and corporate, Defendant. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Aaron J. Kozloski, Capitol Counsel, Columbia, SC, George Daly, Charlotte, NC, for Plaintiffs.Eric Nieuwenhuis Kniffin, Eric Christopher Rassbach, Lori Halstead Windham, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, DC, Kenneth Eugene Darr, Jr., Lyles Darr and Clark, Spartanburg, SC, James Emory Smith, Jr., SC Attorney General's Office, Columbia, SC, for Defendants.
In this declaratory judgment action, Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of a public school's policy of conferring academic credit to high school students for off-campus religious instruction. Plaintiffs contend that such a policy, as adopted and implemented by Spartanburg County School District No. 7 (the “School District”), is repugnant to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In addition to declaratory relief, Plaintiffs seek nominal damages and attorney fees. This matter is presently before the court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The Attorney General of South Carolina, appearing as amicus curiae, has filed a brief in support of the School District. The court held a hearing on the merits of the parties' pending motions on February 9, 2011, and for the reasons explained below, the court grants the School District's motion for summary judgment and denies the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
Since 1992, students enrolled in South Carolina public schools have had the opportunity to receive religious instruction by voluntarily attending released time classes,1 and it is estimated that approximately 12,000 South Carolina students presently attend a released time class each week. (Def. Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. B–1 ( Charlotte Observer Article).) In 2002, the General Assembly of South Carolina formally codified school districts' authority to release students during the school day to partake in off-campus religious instruction. S.C. Code Ann. § 59–1–460(A). Four years later, the general assembly enacted into law the South Carolina Released Time Credit Act (“SCRTCA”), which authorized South Carolina public school districts to award high school students “elective Carnegie unit credits” 2 for released time religious instruction. S.C. Code Ann. § 59–39–112(A). The South Carolina legislature enacted the SCRTCA after finding that “the absence of an ability to award such credits ha[d] essentially eliminated the school districts' ability to accommodate parents' and students' desires to participate in released time programs.” 2006 S.C. Acts 322. The statute directs school districts to apply “purely secular” criteria when awarding academic credit for released time instruction. § 59–39–112(A)(1).
Prior to the adoption of the SCRTCA, the School District permitted its students to receive released time religious instruction through Spartanburg County Bible Education in School Time (“SCBEST”), a non-profit religious education provider. (Pl. Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 5 (Martin Dep. at 22).) With student interest dwindling, however, SCBEST stopped offering religious instruction to students attending the School District sometime before 2006. ( Id.) Following the enactment of the SCRTCA, SCBEST sought to institute a released time program that allowed Spartanburg High School students to receive academic credit for released time instruction. In October 2006, SCBEST executed an agreement with Oakbrook Preparatory School (“Oakbrook”), an accredited interdenominational Christian school located in Spartanburg. 3 (Pl. Mot. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 8 (Seay Dep. at 20–21).) Pursuant to the agreement, Oakbrook agreed to review and approve SCBEST's curriculum and provide oversight to the Christian instruction. Because SCBEST is unaccredited, the agreement specified that Oakbrook would “acknowledge the participation and grade of each SCBEST student ... and [would] transfer elective credit” to the School District at the conclusion of the course. After executing the agreement with Oakbrook, SCBEST sent numerous correspondences to the School District proposing the adoption of a new released time program that granted students academic credit consistent with the SCRTCA. (Def. Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. B–2 (Graves Dep. at Exs. 180, 182, 183).)
On January 4, 2007, the School District's Instructional Services Committee convened to determine whether to recommend the adoption of a new released time policy. Drew Martin (“Martin”), the executive director of SCBEST, attended the meeting to present SCBEST's proposal for a policy allowing high school students to receive elective credit for an SCBEST released time course. (Pl. Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 5 (Martin Dep. at 29).) On January 9, 2007, a member of the Instructional Services Committee presented a motion to the School District's Board of Trustees to offer high school students academic credit for released time instruction. The Board of Trustees unanimously adopted the motion and instructed that the School District would adopt a formal released time policy. (Def. Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. B–2 (Graves Dep. at Ex. 151).)
After the January Board of Trustees meeting, the School District drafted an initial released time policy. SCBEST suggested that the School District develop a released time policy based upon the SCRTCA, and to aid the School District in crafting a policy, SCBEST provided school officials with a sample released time policy. (Pl. Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 19 (Tobin Dep. at 23, 27).) The School District did not adopt SCBEST's proposed policy; instead, its policy was influenced by the SCRTCA as well as a model policy provided by the South Carolina School Board Association in August 2006. (Def. Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 5.) The proposed released time policy was read at the School District's February Board of Trustees meeting. The initial policy provided that the School District “may award high school students no more than two elective Carnegie unit credits for classes in religious instruction taken during the school day in accordance with this policy.” (Pl. Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 34 (Dep. Ex. 155).) After making some minor amendments to its initial policy, the School District's released time policy was formally adopted by the Board of Trustees on March 6, 2007. Among the School District's changes to the policy was to amend the language providing that the School District “may award” academic credit to state that the School District “will accept” no more than two Carnegie unit credits for released time education. According to Nan McDaniel, the School District's Director of Secondary Education, the textual alteration was intended to clarify that the School District was merely accepting transfer credits rather than actively “making judgments about the quality of the course.” (Def. Mem. Supp. Summ. J. Ex. B–12 (McDaniel Dep. at 10).) The School District's adopted released time policy states:
RELEASED TIME FOR RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION. Code JHCB
Issued 3/07.
Purpose: To establish the basic structure for released time for students for religious instruction.
The board will release students in grades seven through twelve from school, at the written request of their parent/legal guardian, for the purpose of religious instruction for a portion of the day. The school will consider this part of the school day.
The Board will not allow the student to miss required instructional time for the purpose of religious instruction. Any absences for this purpose must be during a student's non-instructional or elective periods of the school day. When approving the release of students for religious instruction, the board assumes no responsibility for the program or liability for the students involved. Its attitude will be one of cooperation with the various sponsoring groups of the school district.
The sponsoring group or the student's parent/legal guardian is completely responsible for transportation to and from the place of instruction. The district assumes no responsibility or liability for such transportation. Religious instruction must take place away from school property and at a regularly designated location.
District officials will insure that no public funds will be expended to support a released time program and that district staff and faculty will not promote or discourage participation by district students in a released time program.
Elective credit
The district will accept no more than two elective Carnegie unit credits for religious instruction taken during the school day in accordance with this policy. The district will evaluate the classes on the basis of purely secular criteria prior to accepting credit. The district will accept off campus transfer of credit for release time classes with prior approval.
Spartanburg High School began offering students religious instruction through SCBEST in August 2007. Throughout the implementation of its released time policy, the School District has taken affirmative steps to distinguish released time instruction from its secular curriculum. The School District forbids SCBEST from providing religious instruction on school property; instead, the released time courses are conducted at a church adjacent to Spartanburg High School. (Pl. Mem. Supp. Summ. J. at 6.) The School District has never advertised the SCBEST course, and it does not include the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freedom From Religion Found., Inc. v. Mercer Cnty. Bd. of Educ., CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-00642
...not moot because the plaintiffs' injury was complete at the time the violation occurred."); see also Moss v. Spartanburg County School Dist. No. 7, 775 F. Supp.2d 858, 870 n.6 (D.S.C. 2011) (noting that although plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief was moot, her claim for nominal damage......