973 F.3d 1010
9th Cir.2020Background:
- Plaintiffs (CAPEEM and Hindu parents) challenged select provisions of California’s 1998 History–Social Science Content Standards and the 2016 Curriculum Framework for grades 6–7, alleging they disparaged Hinduism and favored Abrahamic religions.
- Key contested items: (1) descriptions characterizing Hinduism as "beliefs and practices" or a "culture that emerged as a belief system," (2) instruction to "discuss the significance of the Aryan Invasions," and (3) framing of caste as a religious belief.
- The Standards and Framework are model guidance issued by the State Board; local districts implement and may modify classroom materials (students do not read the Standards/Framework directly).
- District court dismissed most claims (Equal Protection, Free Exercise, substantive due process) and reserved one Establishment disparagement claim; later granted summary judgment for defendants on that Establishment claim and excluded plaintiffs’ expert report.
- Ninth Circuit affirmed: Equal Protection and Free Exercise claims failed as pleaded; parents have no due process right to control curricular content; Establishment claim (endorsement/disparagement) failed on an objective reasonable-observer reading, and exclusion of the expert was not an abuse.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal Protection — curriculum content | Standards/Framework treat Hinduism less favorably than other religions and the adoption process favored edits hostile to Hinduism | Challenges to curriculum content are not cognizable absent plausible allegation of an intentionally discriminatory policy | Dismissed — Monteiro bars Equal Protection challenges to curricular content absent evidence of discriminatory intent/policy |
| Free Exercise | Curriculum denigrates Hinduism and thus burdens plaintiffs’ religious exercise; recent Supreme Court cases (Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, Masterpiece) change pleading requirements | No coercion, exclusion from a benefit, or penalty alleged; plaintiffs do not allege any concrete burden on religious practice | Dismissed — plaintiffs failed to allege a burden or coercive/penal governmental action; offensive content alone is insufficient |
| Substantive Due Process (parental rights) | Curriculum disparagement interferes with parents’ liberty to direct upbringing and education | Parents may choose forum but not dictate in-school curricular content; once parents send children to public school, control is diminished | Dismissed — no due process right to control curriculum or intramural educational content (Fields, McNeil) |
| Establishment Clause — endorsement/disparagement; expert evidence | Materials implicitly endorse Abrahamic religions and primarily disparage Hinduism; expert report shows specialized academic disparagement | Materials do not teach religious claims as historical fact; reasonable observer would not see primary effect of disparagement; expert interpretation is irrelevant to reasonable-observer test | Summary judgment for defendants — objective reading does not show endorsement or primary-effect disparagement; district court properly excluded expert as irrelevant to the reasonable-observer inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- Monteiro v. Tempe Union School District, 158 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 1998) (curriculum-content Equal Protection challenges barred absent evidence of discriminatory policy)
- Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017) (Free Exercise: exclusion from public benefit can violate Free Exercise)
- Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (2020) (Free Exercise: religious exclusion from a public benefit impermissible)
- Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018) (Free Exercise: adjudicatory hostility toward religion can violate Free Exercise)
- Fields v. Palmdale School District, 427 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2005) (parents’ substantive due process right does not permit control over public school curricular content)
- American Family Ass’n v. City & County of San Francisco, 277 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2002) (Free Exercise requires allegation of burden on religious exercise in non-regulatory contexts)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental liberty interest in care and control of children)
- Grove v. Mead School Dist. No. 354, 753 F.2d 1528 (9th Cir. 1985) (offensive but nonburdensome government action does not violate Free Exercise)