### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 20, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1625 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00258 -CV -4-RH D E BO RA H CO O PE R, ne xt f ri en d of a nd o n b e h a l f o f c h i l d r e n A & B a n df

o r h e r s e l f i n d i v i du a l l y, L IS A A
. ME A D , ne xt f

ri en d of a nd o n be ha lf

of ch il dr en C, D & E andforhe rs el f in di vi du al ly, etal., Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us STATE OF FLORIDA, JO HN E L L IS BU SH , G ove rn or S ta te of F lor ida in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty, a.k .a. Je b, et al., D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 20 , 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , A

N D E RS O N a nd D U BIN A , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: Appe llants a re agr oup of pare nts r ep re se nti ng the m se lve s and the ir ch ildre n. T he y

appe al the de ci sio n of

the dis tr ic t c ourt, dis m iss ing the ir sui t against the State of Florida and various other state officia ls and entities. Children A & B ex rel . Coo pe r v. Fl or id a, 35 5 F . Sup p 2 d 1 29 8 (N.D. Fl a. 20 04 ). Appe llants br ough t su it cl ai m ing that the F lor ida vou ch er sy ste m vio la te d th ei r fundam en ta l r igh ts a s pare nts to ch oose w hic h sc hool s w er e ap pr opr ia te f or the ir ch ildre n by

sub sti tut ing the S ta te ’ s j udgm en t of w he the r the sc hool w as f ai lin g their children for their ow n. T hey argue that it is their fundam ental right as pare nts to de te rm ine w hic h sc hool s are be st f or the ir c hil dr en , a nd tha t the S ta te shou ld p ro vid e the m

w ithf undi ng f or pr ivate sc hool w he n th ey , the pare nts , de te rm ine that the pub lic sc hool is fa ili ng the ir c hil dr en . T he y

a lso a rg ue that the de nia l of f undi ng f or pr ivate sc hool s of

the ir c hoi ce c onst itu te s di sc ri m inatio n ag ai nst the ir e xpr es sio n of

e duc at ion al vie w s, in vio la tio n of the F ir st A m en dm en t. T he S ta te of

F lor ida pr ovi de s ac om

pr eh en siv e sy ste m

of f re e ed uc at ionf or gr ad es kin de rg ar

te n th ro ugh tw el ve . I t a lso c om pe ls atte ndanc e, a lth ough
co m pli an ce w iththi s r equir em en t m ay be sa tis fi ed

thr ougha tte ndanc e of

pub lic or pr ivate sc hool s, or

thr oughhom e- sc hool ing
. T he re a re c er ta in i nst an ce s w he n th e St at e w ill pr ovi de f

undi ng f or astu de nt t o a tte nd p ri va te sc hool : 1) w he n th e St at e3

ha s de te rm ine d th at

the stu de nt’ s pu

bli c sc hool is fa ili ng, or

2) w he n th e stu de nt i s dis ab le d and the pare nts de em the stu de nt’ s sc hool is fa ili ng. F la
. S ta t. §§ 1 0 0 2
. 3 8 , 1 0 0 2
. 3 9
. T h e S t a t e d e t e rmi n e s i f a s c h o o l i s f

a i l i n g b a s e do n “a
co m bin at ionof

stu de nt a ch ie ve m en t sc or es , stu de nt l earn ing ga ins a s m ea sur ed by
an nua l F lor ida

Co m pr eh en siv e A sse ssm en t T es t ( FC A T ) as se ssm en ts i n gr ad es 3 thr ough10, a nd i m

pr ove m en t of

the low es t 25 th p er ce nti le of stu de nts in the
sc hool in re ad ing , m ath, or w ri tin g onF CA T , unl es s th es e stu de nts a re pe rf orm ing ab ove sa tis fa ct or

y pe rf orm an ce . ” F la
. S ta t. § 10 08. 34. T he D ue P ro ce ss C lause of the Co nst itu tio n pr ote ct s th e fundam en ta l r igh t of pare nts to dir ec t the e duc at ionof the ir c hil dr en . P ie rc e v. S oc ie ty of S ist er s, 268 U
. S. 510 , 534 -3 5, 45 S
. Ct
. 571 , 573 ( 1924 ). I n P ie rc e, the Co urt he ld tha t the St at e of O re gon co uld

not r equir e stu de nts a tte nd p ubl ic sc hool s, in part be ca use it int er fe re d w iththi s r igh t. H er e, by c ontra st, the S ta te is not

c om pe lli ng atte ndanc e; r athe r, it

is not sub sid iz ing the pare nts ’ c hoi ce to se nd the ir c hil dr ento
a pr ivate sc hool
. P ar en ts h av e the opt ionto se nd the ir c hil dr ento pr ivate sc hool s but the S ta te w ill not

pay f or it unl es s th e St at e de te rm ine s th at the pub lic sc hool to whi ch th e ch il d i s as si gn edis fai li ng . Appe llants ha ve no r igh t t o have af undam en ta l r igh t su

bsi diz ed
. I n H ar

ri s
v. Mc Ra e, 448 U
. S. 297 , 100 S
. Ct
. 267 1 ( 1980 ), the Co urt r ej ec te d th e pla int if fs ’4

ar gum en t tha t the r es tr ic tio n of paym en t f

or abortio ns b y

Me dic ai d im

pin ge d on the ir li be rty int er es t pr ote ct ed

by the D ue P ro ce ss C lause . T he Co urt st at ed that “ it sim ply doe s no t f

oll owthat a

w om an ’ s f

re ed om of c hoi ce c ar

ri es w ithit

a co nst itu tio na l e nti tle m en t t o th e fi nanc ia l r es our ce s to a va il he rs el f of the f ull
range of pr ote ct ed

c hoi ce s. ” I d. a t 31 6, 100 S
. Ct
. a t 26 88. T he c ourt c ont inu ed : It c an not be that be ca

use gov er nm en t m ay

not pr ohi bit the use of co ntr ac ep tiv es , or

pr ev en t pare nts f

ro m se ndi ng the ir

c hil d to a pr ivate sc hool , gov er

nm en t, the re fo re , ha s an a ff irm at ive constitu tional ob ligation to ensure that all persons have the financial re sour ce s to obt ai n c ontra ce pti ve s or se nd the ir

c hil dr ento pr ivate sc hool s. T o tr an slate the li m itatio n ongov er nm en ta l po w er

im pli ci t i n the D ue P ro ce ss C lause int o an a ff irm at ive f undi ng o bli ga tio n w oul d require Congress to subsi dize the m edically necessary

abortion of an ind ige nt w om ane ve n if

Co ngr es s ha d no t e na ct ed aMe dic ai d pr ogr am to subs idi ze oth er

m ed ic al ly

ne ce ssary

se rv ic es . N oth ing in th e Due Pro ces s C la us e su pp or ts su ch an ex tra or di na ry res ul t. Whe the r fr ee dom

of c hoi ce that i s c onst itu tio na lly pr ote ct ed

w ar rants fe de ra l su bsi diz at ionis a que sti on f or Co ngr es s to a nsw er , not

a m atte r of c onst itu tio na l e nti tle m en t. Id
. a t 31 8, 100 S
. Ct
. a t 26 88- 89. T hus it is c le ar that the S ta te is unde r no obl igatio n to sub sid iz e the Appe llants ’ e xe rc ise of the ir f undam en ta l r igh t t o ch o o s e t h e e du ca t i o n o f t h ei r c h i l d re n . An d , i ti s eq u al l y cl ea r t h at t h e S t at e’s fa ilure to subs idi ze the Appe llants ’ f undam en ta l r igh t t o c hoos e the e duc at ionof the ir c hil dr enis not

tantam ount

to de pr ivi ng the Appe llants of that r igh t. Furthe rm or e, the S ta te doe s no t i nva de thi s r igh t w he n it m ak es it sAt some points in their brief, Appe llants seem to vaguely argue that state la

w 1 bestows upon them an individual rig ht to state funding , and the State imposes a c ondition on rec eivingthat funding . Appellants sug g est that the condition of the f unding violate s the fede ral constitution. To the ex tent such ar g ument is made, we reje ct its predicate. We defe r to and a g ree with the state cour

ts, which ruled a g ainst Appellants in related state c ourt litigation, that F lorida law cr eate s no rig ht to funding f or a pr ivate school e ducation.

5 de te rm inatio n th at

the sc hool s are f

ai lin g ac ondi tio n pr ec ed en t t o pr ovi din g publi c funding
. The Appellants are still free to m ake that determ ination them selves at
an y ti m e, the y

j ust c an not e xpe ct to ha ve the de te rm inatio n f unde d un le ss the S ta te ag re es . T he re is no u sur

pa tio n; r athe r, the sub sidy doe s no t tri gge r unt il ce rt ai n cr ite ri a ar e m et . C f. L oc ke v. D av ey , 540 U
. S. 712 , 124 S
. Ct
. 130 7 ( 2004 ) (holdin g that state’ s denial of fundin g for scholarship if field of study wa s preparation for the m inistry did no t violate the recipient’ s rights un der the Fr ee Exer cise Clause beca

use he wa s not prevented from study ing for the m inistry ). 1 Appellants argue that the denial of funding for private school discrim inates ag ai nst the ir e xpr es sio n of

e duc at ion al vie w s th at

a re pr ote ct ed

by the F ir st A m en dm en t. A s di sc uss ed above , the S tate a w ar ds s ta te f unds f or pr ivate ed uc at ionto a stu de nt whe n it de te rm ine s th at

the stu de nt’ s a ssi gne d publi c sc hool is failing. Its deter

m ination that the school is failing is based up on criteria c hosen by the S ta te – pa ssa ge r at es of the F CA T
. Appe lla

nts a rg ue that the ir

vie w s of
w he n th e sc hool is fa ili ng s houl d be sub sti tut ed or e lse thi s vi olate s th ei r ri ght s to fr ee spe ec h. H ow ev er , Appe llants r et ai n th e ri ght to de te rm ine w he n asc hool isAp pe lla nts ’ r e lia nc e on Ros e nb e rg e r v . Re c tor

& Vi sit or s o f t

he Un iv. of

Va ., 51 5 U .S. 2 831, 115 S.Ct . 2510 (1995), is unfounde d. In that case , fundingwas de nied on the basis of viewpoint. Her e, bene ficiar ies’ viewpoint is not fac tored into the ana ly sis. Additionally , we re je c t App e lla

nts ’ l imi te d p ub lic fo rum argume nt. Th e State ha s n ot c re ate d a ny kin d o f p ub lic forum; this is a subsidy

case and the State is not requir ed to subsidiz e the Appe llants. Appellants’ r equest for

oral a rgument is denied. Any

other a rguments asserte d by 3 Appellants on appe al ar e re jected w ithout need for f

urther disc ussion. 6 failing, but noth ing in the First A m endm ent requires the State to subs idize that de te rm inatio n. 2 AFFIR MED. 3