565 F.Supp.3d 607
M.D. Pa.2021Background:
- Montoursville School Board initially adopted a Health and Safety Plan declaring masks optional for 2021–22 and posted that plan to parents.
- COVID-19 Delta surge in Pennsylvania prompted the Acting Secretary of Health on August 31, 2021 to order universal indoor masking in Pre-K–12 school entities.
- Superintendent Bason implemented a district-wide mask mandate following the Department of Health order; plaintiffs allege she did so without a public School Board meeting.
- Plaintiffs (parents) sued seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction against enforcement of the Montoursville Mask Mandate, asserting procedural due process, substantive due process, and First Amendment freedom of association claims.
- The court held a hearing, applied the Third Circuit preliminary injunction framework, and considered whether plaintiffs showed likelihood of success and irreparable harm.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process | Mask mandate issued without adequate School Board process deprived parents/students of liberty to raise children and property interest in education | Mandate implemented to comply with presumptively lawful state DOH order; masks do not exclude students from school | Court: No protected liberty or property deprivation established; defendants complied with state order; claim unlikely to succeed |
| Substantive due process | Parents and children have a fundamental right to attend school without masks | No fundamental right implicated; mask rule rationally furthers public health objectives | Court: Not a fundamental right; rational basis applies and is satisfied; claim unlikely to succeed |
| Freedom of association | Masks prevent or materially impair students’ ability to associate safely | Masking only minimally alters how students assemble and is not a direct and substantial burden on association | Court: No significant interference shown; claim unlikely to succeed |
| Irreparable harm / injunctive relief | Masks cause present existential health threats, bullying, bodily injury and thus irreparable harm | Alleged harms speculative; masking aligns with public health guidance; public interest favors enforcement of DOH order | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show immediate, irreparable harm; preliminary and permanent injunctions denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (defines protected property interests for due process)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (public education recognized as a protected property interest)
- Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173 (Third Circuit preliminary injunction gateway factors)
- Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (standards for defining liberty interests)
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (framework for fundamental rights analysis)
- Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (categories of associational rights)
- Lyng v. United Auto Workers, 485 U.S. 360 (government may incidentally inhibit association)
- AT&T v. Winback and Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421 (injunctive relief is extraordinary)
- ECRI v. McGraw-Hill, 809 F.2d 223 (irreparable harm requirement for injunctions)
- San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (education not a fundamental right)