Sheridan Road Baptist Church v. Department of Educ.

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WILLIAMS; ARCHER; BOYLE; BRICKLEY; RILEY; Justice Boyle would apply Yoder in the present case to uphold the enforcement of the challenged legislation even though the state has not even shown that an exemption would impair its ability to fully achieve
• Citation: Sheridan Road Baptist Church v. Department of Educ., 426 Mich. 462, 396 N.W.2d 373 (Mich. 1986)
• Decision Date: 24 November 1986
• Docket Number: No. 73665,73665
• Parties: , 36 Ed. Law Rep. 155 SHERIDAN ROAD BAPTIST CHURCH; First Baptist Church Bridgeport; Reverend Gerald Somero; Reverend Rene B. Ouellette; William L. Swain and Sharon Swain, his wife; Ronald Munson and Janice Munson, his wife; and Mrs. Susanne Kwaitkowski, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; and Phillip E. Runkel, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Defendants-Appellees.

Page 373

396 N.W.2d 373

426 Mich. 462, 36 Ed. Law Rep. 155

SHERIDAN ROAD BAPTIST CHURCH; First Baptist Church Bridgeport; Reverend Gerald Somero; Reverend Rene B Ouellette; William L. Swain and Sharon Swain, his wife Ronald Munson and Janice Munson, his wife; and Mrs. Susanne Kwaitkowski, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; and Phillip E. Runkel Superintendent of Public Instruction, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 73665.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued Nov. 13, 1985.

Decided Nov. 24, 1986.

William Bentley Ball, Philip J. Murren, Sandra E. Wise, Ball & Skelly, Harrisburg, Pa., Michael E. Thomas, Flint, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Gerald F. Young, Paul J. Zimmer, Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendants-appellees.

Miller, Cohen, Martens & Ice, P.C. by Mark H. Cousens, Glenda L. Pittman, Detroit, for amicus curiae, Michigan Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO.

Foster, Swift, Collins & Coey, P.C. by James A. White, William K. Fahey, Lansing, for amicus curiae Michigan Educ. Ass'n.

Steven F. McDowell, Gen. Counsel, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Milwaukee, Wis., Jeffrey R. Portko, Lawson, Marcus & Portko, Grand Rapids, for amicus curiae, The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

WILLIAMS, Chief Justice.

This case involves primarily a free exercise of religion challenge based on the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and art. 1, Sec. 4, and art. 8, Sec. 1, of the Michigan Constitution ¹ to the state statute requiring teachers in nonpublic schools to be certified by the state. The lower court also found that the regulations resulted in an Establishment Clause violation.

Specifically, the free exercise challenge is in two parts. The first part is phrased as follows in plaintiffs' reply brief:

"To repeat: the Churches' point is not that a certified teacher may not teach in the Churches' schools' [sic]; it is that restricting the freedom of churches to engaging only government-certified teachers in its school ministry is abhorrent to their Scriptural beliefs. It is not for the State to play theologian in this matter." (Emphasis in original.)

The second part involves objections to the teacher certification rules. The plaintiffs' reply brief states:

"[T]he certification rules ... intrude upon or threaten the operation of the church-schools in their selection of their teachers.... [T]he rules clearly evidence reservation of the ultimate State subjective control over important aspects of the making of a teacher in areas portending deep philosophical and religious differences between the plaintiff church-schools and prevailing secular philosophies concerning education matters. See, e.g. Roth testimony supra re 'skills essential to ... inquiry in modern society.' " ²

Using the balancing analysis developed by the United States Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963), we find that the state's interest in ensuring that all teachers have met certain minimum requirements outweighs the slight burden the regulatory scheme poses to plaintiffs' free exercise rights. As applied, we find that the certification requirements are not discriminatory and do not require plaintiffs to adhere to any particular religious outlook. We also find that there is no Establishment Clause violation as the regulations do not lead to excessive entanglement between church and state.

We decline to reach the other issues initially raised by the plaintiffs as it appears they are no longer in controversy. Plaintiffs, both at oral argument and in their brief, and defendants at oral argument, indicated that there was agreement between the church and the state on the other points. ³

I. FACTS

In September, 1979, the Department of Education, acting under the authority of the state's nonpublic school statute, 1921 P.A. 302, M.C.L. Sec. 388.551 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 15.1921 et seq., ⁴ sought to obtain information about student enrollment and teacher qualifications from two church schools. The schools refused to comply with the requests, and, as a result, the state scheduled an administrative hearing to determine whether the schools were in violation of the statute.

On December 6, 1980, the schools, the church pastors, members of the schools' faculties, and parents of children enrolled in the schools filed a declaratory action in the Ingham Circuit Court, alleging that the statute which the state sought to enforce was unconstitutional on the basis of the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and art. 1, Sec. 4, and art. 8, Sec. 1, of the Michigan Constitution (Joint Appendix, pp 22a-24a). Plaintiffs' request for a restraining order was granted, but subsequently vacated, after the state agreed to take no further action until the case was decided. On February 12, 1981, the defendants filed a counterclaim requesting that the court declare the nonpublic school statute constitutional on its face and as applied to the plaintiffs (Joint Appendix, p 45a).

A six-day bench trial was held in April before Judge Ray C. Hotchkiss. At trial, it was established that Sheridan Road Baptist Church operates the Sheridan Road Christian School, and that First Baptist Church of Bridgeport operates the Bridgeport Baptist Academy. Both schools offer a kindergarten through grade twelve program. The plaintiffs were identified as the church schools, the pastors of the churches, and certain teachers at the schools and parents of students attending the schools (Joint Appendix, pp 59a, 118a, 130a, 168a, 172a).

In an opinion dated December 29, 1982, the trial court found that Sec. 3 of 1921 P.A. 302, requiring teacher certification, was unconstitutional because it violated plaintiffs' free exercise rights and created excessive government entanglement with religion (Joint Appendix, pp 614a-615a). ⁵

Defendants appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals which reversed the circuit court, holding that the certification requirements violated neither the Free Exercise nor the Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. ⁶ Sheridan Road Baptist Church v. Dep't of Education, 132 Mich.App. 1, 348 N.W.2d 263 (1984).

Plaintiffs' application for leave to appeal to this Court originally was denied, 419 Mich. 916 (1984), but, after reconsideration, leave was granted on April 5, 1985, 422 Mich. 857 (1985).

II. FREE EXERCISE OBJECTION TO CERTIFICATION

A. State System of Regulation

The Legislature has determined that teachers in all schools in the state must be certified. M.C.L. Sec. 388.551; M.S.A. Sec. 15.1921 and M.C.L. Sec. 388.533; M.S.A. Sec. 15.1923; respectively, provide in relevant parts:

"It is the intent of this act that the sanitary conditions of such schools, the courses of study therein, and the qualifications of the teachers thereof shall be of the same standard as provided by the general school laws of the state."

"No person shall teach or give instruction ... in any private, denominational or parochial school within this state who does not hold a certificate such as would qualify him or her to teach in like grades of the public schools of the state...."

The regulations governing teacher qualifications are promulgated by the State Board of Education and contained in the Teacher Certification Code, 1979 AC, R 390.1101 et seq., 1981 AACS, R 390.1101 et seq. In order to obtain a provisional teaching certificate, ⁷ an applicant must demonstrate the following:

1) completion of at least forty semester hours in a program of general or liberal education and demonstration of an acquaintance with the substance, concepts, and methods of the principal areas of human knowledge and skills essential to communication and inquiry in modern society;

2) completion of a program providing for depth in the substantive field to be taught;

3) completion of twenty semester hours in education courses (including at least six hours of directed teaching);

4) completion of a major of at least thirty semester hours and a minor of twenty semester hours (or for an elementary certificate completion of either a major of at least thirty semester hours or three minors of twenty semester hours each);

5) a bachelor's degree obtained from an approved Michigan college or university or an acceptable certificate issued by another state.

Under these regulations, the State Board of Education has issued thousands of provisional certificates to out-of-state college graduates, including graduates of Catholic and fundamentalist Christian schools (Joint Appendix, p 300a).

B. Test for Analyzing Free Exercise Objections to State Regulations

The United States Supreme Court has developed a method of analyzing free exercise objections to state statutes. The following three quotations will serve as a basis for our development of a four-part test for this analysis.

The first quotation is from Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. at 215, 92 S.Ct. at 1533, and reads as follows:

"[T]o have the protection of the Religious Clauses, the claims must be rooted in religious belief."

The second quotation is from Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. at 403, 83 S.Ct. at 1793, and reads as follows:

"If therefore, the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court is to withstand appellant's constitutional challenge, it must be either because her disqualification as a beneficiary [of unemployment compensation] represents no infringement by the State of her constitutional rights of free exercise, or because any incidental burden on the free exercise of appellant's religion may be justified by a 'compelling state interest in the regulation of a subject within the State's constitutional power to regulate....' NAACP v. Button, 371 US 415, 438 [83 S.Ct. 328, 9 L.Ed.2d 405 (1963) ]."

The third quotation is also from Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 407, 83...