Sample brief

Curtis v. School Committee of Falmouth
420 Mass. 749, 652 N.E.2d 580 (1995)

PARTIES: The plaintiffs are parents of children enrolled in the junior and senior high schools of Falmouth, Massachusetts. Defendants are elected members of the Falmouth School Committee.

FACTS: In 1992, the Falmouth School Committee authorized the Superintendent of Schools to implement a new program making condoms available to students in the junior and senior high schools. The program was voluntary. If students wanted free condoms, they went to the school nurse who counseled them about sexually transmitted diseases before giving out condoms. At the high school, students could buy condoms from vending machines without being counseled. There was no “op out” provision in the programs for parents who did not want their children exposed to condoms or counseling nor was there a provision requiring the school to notify parents when their children requested condoms. When the Superintendent of Schools tool steps to implement the new program, parents of students sued the School Committee claiming it violated their rights to parental liberty, familial privacy, and freedom of religion.

ISSUE: Is a voluntary, junior and senior high school condom-availability program, without provisions permitting parents to opt out of the program or notifying parents if their child requests a condom, an unnecessary governmental intrusion on parents’ constitutional rights to parental liberty, familial privacy, or religious freedom?

REASONING: The fourteenth amendment prohibits government from unnecessarily intruding on parental decisions about child rearing. The Supreme Court has ruled that a government program is unnecessarily intrusive if it “causes a coercive or compulsory effect” on parents’ choices about how to raise their children. Upholding this principle, the Court struck down laws requiring Amish parents to send their children to secular schools and forbidding Catholic parents from sending their children to parochial schools. In this case, the parents argued that the condom-availability program coerced them into allowing their children to have access to information which they found morally repugnant. The Massachusetts Supreme Court rejected the parents’ argument. Although students are required to attend school, the court reasoned, they are not required to participate in the condom-availability program. Because the program is voluntary, the constitution does not require opt out or notification provisions for dissenting parents.

The parents also argued that the condom-availability program burdened their free exercise of religion because it sanctioned views counter to their religious beliefs. The court found that state conduct violates the First Amendment when it “conditions receipt of an important benefit on conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by a religious belief.” Here, participation in the program was entirely voluntary and not a requirement of school attendance. Thus, there was no undue burden placed on the parents’ free exercise of their religion. Nor did peer pressure to participate in the program create a burden of constitutional dimension. According to the court, “mere exposure to offensive programs does not amount to a violation of free exercise. Parents have no right to tailor public school programs to meet their individual religious or moral preferences.”

RULE: Public secondary schools may offer voluntary programs to their students that contradict individual parents’ moral or religious beliefs.