Doe v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District
8 N.E.3d 737
Mass.2014Background
- Parents (Jane and John Doe) and their three children (atheists/Humanists) sued after daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in Acton schools, challenging inclusion of the words "under God."
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the Massachusetts Constitution (art. 1 as amended by art. 106 — equal rights amendment) and G. L. c. 76, § 5 (school nondiscrimination statute).
- Massachusetts law (G. L. c. 71, § 69) directs teachers to lead daily recitation, but the record shows recitation is entirely voluntary and no student is compelled to participate.
- The Doe children usually participated but omitted "under God;" they alleged stigma, marginalization, and potential bullying, though the record contained no evidence of actual punishment or mistreatment.
- Trial court entered summary judgment for defendants; the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding the voluntary recitation with "under God" did not violate art. 106 or G. L. c. 76, § 5.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether daily, in-school recitation of the Pledge (including "under God") violates art. 106 (equal protection) | The phrase "under God" stigmatizes and classifies nonbelievers, creating religious discrimination against the Does | The recitation is a voluntary, patriotic exercise applied equally; no classification or differential treatment occurs | No violation — no cognizable classification where participation is voluntary and all students have the same options |
| Whether the practice violates G. L. c. 76, § 5 (school antidiscrimination statute) | § 5 parallels art. 106; if pledge violates art. 106 it violates § 5 | Statute is not implicated because no discriminatory exclusion or advantage is conferred; patriotism is not a school-offered privilege | No violation — same reasoning as art. 106: voluntary, equal application does not deny statutory protections |
| Whether feelings of stigma/exclusion alone can satisfy art. 106 | Plaintiffs argued stigma from public recitation is itself an actionable equal-protection injury | Defendants argued mere offense or stigmatization from an otherwise neutral, voluntary program is not a legally cognizable equal-protection harm | Held stigma alone (without unequal treatment, penalty, or denial of rights) is not actionable under art. 106 in these circumstances |
| Whether mandatory recitation can be required by state law despite Barnette | (Plaintiffs did not press a claim that recitation was mandatory) | Defendants relied on existing statute but acknowledged it is unenforceable as mandatory | Court reiterated Barnette: no student may be compelled to recite the Pledge; participation is optional |
Key Cases Cited
- Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004) (history and context show the Pledge is primarily a patriotic exercise despite "under God")
- West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (students cannot be compelled to salute the flag or recite the Pledge)
- Freedom From Religion Found. v. Hanover Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (voluntary recitation does not create an equal protection violation; endorsement/stigma analysis)
- Myers v. Loudoun County Pub. Sch., 418 F.3d 395 (4th Cir. 2005) (Pledge is patriotic, not religious; voluntary recitation permissible)
- Finch v. Commonwealth Health Ins. Connector Auth., 459 Mass. 655 (2011) (art. 106 classifications receive strict scrutiny; used to frame plaintiff's burden to show a suspect classification)
- Curtis v. School Comm. of Falmouth, 420 Mass. 749 (1995) (school programs that offend religious beliefs but are otherwise lawful do not themselves violate constitutional protections)