In CAPEEM V. Torlakson, published September 3, 2020, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed judgment in favor of the State Board of Education and State Department of Education against a challenge brought by parents of Hindu children in California state schools. The state defendants developed model curriculum outlines concerning the history of the world's first major religions. The plaintiffs contended that the outlines carry a hostile and denigrating message about the origins of Hinduism when compared with similar provisions relating to other religions of the world. They brought challenges to the outlines as violating their rights under Due Process, Equal Protection, and the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. The district court dismissed all claims except an Establishment Clause claim, and then granted summary judgment on that claim.
The appellate court affirmed. The Equal Protection claims fail because precedent bars attempts to control school curricula through Equal Protection challenges absent evidence of unlawful discriminatory intent. The plaintiffs failed to articulate any discriminatory intent. Nor do their challenges to the adoption of the outlines show violation of Equal Protection because the drafters allegedly did not accept their proposed edits while accepting proposed edits from other religions. Absent discriminatory intent, they cannot challenge the content of the curricula based on Equal Protection. The court properly dismissed the Free Exercise challenge because the plaintiffs failed to articulate any burden on their exercise or practice of their religion. They allege no penalty or coerced conduct. The parents' Substantive Due Process rights to make decisions in their children's upbringing do not extend beyond the school door. In regard to the Establishment Claim, the district court properly excluded the plaintiffs' expert declaration interpreting the outlines, because the issue was how a reasonable person, rather than an expert, would view them. The court rejected the argument that the outlines established other religions by treating them better than Hinduism. An objective reading of the material did not establish anything from the other religions as historically accurate, and did not denigrate Hinduism.
Comments