Cope v. Kansas State Board of Education
821 F.3d 1215
10th Cir.2016Background
- In 2013 the Kansas Board of Education adopted K–12 science "Standards" based on the NRC Framework and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS); the statute requires the Board to adopt standards but preserves local districts’ curricular control.
- COPE (parents, students, taxpayers) sued claiming the Standards covertly promote a nonreligious worldview and thus violate the Establishment Clause by (a) sending a religiously hostile/endorsing message and breaching parental trust, and (b) imminently causing anti-religious instruction when implemented. Two plaintiffs also asserted taxpayer standing.
- COPE sought declaratory and injunctive relief to block the Standards entirely or to bar origins science for younger students and require "objective" teaching in high school.
- The district court dismissed for lack of standing; the Tenth Circuit reviewed standing de novo and assumed legal validity of the claim for standing purposes.
- The court emphasized that the Standards are performance expectations, not prescriptions for curricula, and that Kansas law and the Standards explicitly preserve and encourage local districts to modify or augment them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adoption of the Standards alone causes a concrete Establishment Clause injury | Adoption communicates a government-sponsored nonreligious worldview and breaches parents’ trust in public education | Adoption does not condemn or target religion; Standards are not a religious symbol and contain no facts showing endorsement or condemnation | No standing: adoption-alone allegations are speculative psychological disagreement, not cognizable injury |
| Whether imminent implementation by districts produces "certainly impending" injury | District implementation will force anti-religious teaching (esp. origins science to young children) making injury imminent | Districts retain discretion; implementation is not certain and districts may modify/augment Standards to address concerns | No standing: risk of future injury is speculative and not certainly impending or traceable to the Board’s adoption |
| Whether alleged curricular content (absence of "objective" presentation) is traceable to the Standards | Standards mandate a non-neutral presentation and omit alternatives, causing imminent harm | Standards encourage teaching limits of science and permit districts to go beyond them; alleged omissions are not fairly traceable to Board action | No standing: any harm from how origins science is taught is contingent on independent third-party district decisions |
| Whether two plaintiffs have taxpayer standing to challenge spending on the Standards | Taxpayers object to their tax dollars being used to support religious/anti-religious instruction | Argument was not raised in opening brief (waived) and taxpayer standing not adequately alleged | Waived / not accepted: taxpayer claim was not preserved on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2012) (statute that expressly condemns or disfavors a particular religion can confer standing)
- American Atheists, Inc. v. Davenport, 637 F.3d 1095 (10th Cir. 2011) (government-sponsored religious symbols that cause personal and unwelcome contact can give standing)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (U.S. 2013) (future injury must be certainly impending to support standing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing elements and burden of proof)
- Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1987) (public schools must not use the classroom to advance religious views; parents’ interest in directing religious education)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (conclusory allegations and threadbare recitals insufficient to survive pleading standards)
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (U.S. 1984) (standing cannot rest on speculation about how third parties will act)