102 F.4th 191
4th Cir.2024Background
- Montgomery County Board adopted a set of "LGBTQ-inclusive" children’s books (the “Storybooks”) into the K–5 English Language Arts curriculum; Pride Puppy! and Born Ready are examples.
- The County initially provided notice and individualized opt-outs (and substitute assignments) during 2022–2023, then abruptly revoked notice/opt-outs for the 2023–2024 year.
- Parents (several families) sued, alleging violations of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, a parental due‑process right to direct upbringing (hybrid-rights theory), and related claims; they sought a preliminary injunction requiring notice and opt-outs.
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction, concluding the parents had not shown a cognizable free‑exercise burden and thus had not shown likelihood of success; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed: on the thin record the parents failed to show direct or indirect coercion (mere exposure without proof of compulsion or pressure), so they could not carry the burden needed for preliminary injunctive relief; Judge Quattlebaum dissented and would have granted relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board’s refusal to provide notice and opt-outs for Storybooks burdens parents’ Free Exercise rights | Denial coerces parents/children by exposing young, impressionable children to views that undermine parents’ religious upbringing; that compulsion requires strict scrutiny | No evidence schools compelled belief or affirmation; mere exposure to viewpoints is not coercion; policy survives rational review | Majority: plaintiffs failed to show a cognizable burden on the sparse record; no likelihood of success, so injunction denied (affirmed) |
| Whether the Board’s policy is neutral and generally applicable (i.e., whether strict scrutiny applies) | Guidelines previously allowed discretionary religious accommodations, so the change invites individualized exemptions or reflects nonneutrality; strict scrutiny should apply | Policy applies broadly to K–5 Storybook instruction and serves legitimate educational interests | Majority: did not reach a merits determination because burden not shown; dissent: would find policy nonneutral/not generally applicable and apply strict scrutiny |
| Whether plaintiffs can invoke a hybrid-rights due process theory to obtain strict scrutiny for parental-education claim | Parental right to direct children’s religious upbringing, coupled with Free Exercise, triggers heightened review and entitles plaintiffs to opt-outs | Hybrid-rights is unsettled in this circuit; regardless, parental due-process claim depends on success of Free Exercise showing | Court: hybrid-rights not a basis here because Free Exercise claim is not shown; therefore no heightened protection and no injunction |
| Whether a preliminary injunction was warranted (four-factor test) | Plaintiffs: meet likelihood, irreparable harm, equities, public interest (religious liberty) | Defendants: extraordinary remedy; plaintiffs failed high showing, record is threadbare, public interest favors school autonomy | Court: plaintiffs failed on likelihood of success / burden prong; district court did not abuse discretion in denying injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (Amish-education exemption; holding narrow and fact-specific; compulsion to act against religion was central).
- Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 141 S. Ct. 1868 (2021) (government policy that allows discretionary, individualized exemptions is not generally applicable and may trigger strict scrutiny).
- Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religion are reviewed under rational‑basis).
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy; four‑factor test).
- Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) (conditioning public benefits on conduct proscribed by religion imposes a burden).
- Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (targeting religious practice or nonneutral laws trigger strict scrutiny).
- Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017) (excluding religious actors from public benefits because of religious status burdens Free Exercise).
- Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (2020) (state may not disqualify otherwise eligible recipients from public benefits on account of religious status).
- Mozert v. Hawkins Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 827 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1987) (exposure to curriculum inconsistent with parental beliefs does not alone establish a Free Exercise burden absent compulsion).
- Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (no cognizable burden where schools exposed children to objectionable materials absent evidence of compelled affirmation or indoctrination).