2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-21-2008 

# C omb s v . H ome r C tr S ch D i s t
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-3090

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" C ombs v . H ome r C tr S ch Di s t " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 577. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/577P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N os . 06- 3090, 06- 3091, 06- 3092, 06- 3093, 06- 3094, 06- 3095

M R. DARREL L COM BS ; M RS

. KATHLE EN COM BS

A ppel l ant s atN o. 06- 3090

v . HO M ER- CEN TER SCHO OL D I STRI CT; J O SE PH F. M A R C O L I N E , i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas S u p e rin ten d e n t o f

H o m e r-C e n ter S c h o o l D istric t; TI TUSV I LLE AREA SCHO OL D I STRI CT; BRI STOL TOW NSH I P S CH OO L DI STRI CT; F RANKLI N REGI ONA L S CHOOL DI S TRI CT ( D

. C

. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 04- cv- 1599)
D R. TH O M A S PRE V I SH ; TI M A RI PRE V I SH

A ppel l ant s atN o. 06- 3091

v . NO RW I N SCH OO L DI STRI CT;2 R I C H A R D W A T SO N , i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas Super i nt endentof N orw i n School D i s t r i ct ( D

. C

. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 04- cv- 1670)
DR. M ARK NEW BORN; M RS

. M ARYALI CE NE W BORN

A ppel l ant s atN o. 06- 3092

v . FRAN KLI N R EGI ON AL SCH OO L DI STRI CT; ST E PH E N V A K , i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas Super i nt endentof Fr ankl i n R egi onal School D i s t r i ct

( D

. C

. C i vi l A ct i on 04- cv- 1932)
M R

. T H O M A S H A N K IN ; M R S

. B A B E T T E H A N K IN

A ppel l ant s atN o. 06- 3093

v . BRI STOL TOW NSH I P S CH OO L DI STRI CT; R E G I N A C E SA R I O , i n heroffi ci al capa ci t yas Super i nt endentof B r i s t ol T ow ns hi p School D i s t r i ct

( D

. C

. C i vi l A ct i on 04- cv- 1936)
M R. DOUGL AS NE L S ON; M RS

. S HAR I NE L S ON

A ppel l ant s atN o. 06- 3094

v .3 TI TUSV I LLE AREA SCHO OL D I STRI CT; J O H N D

. R E A G L E , i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas A ct i ng Super i nt endentof Ti tus vi l l e A r ea School D i s t r i ct

( D

. C

. C i vi l A ct i on 05- cv- 0070)
REV

. STEVEN W EBER; M RS. M EG W EBER

A ppel l ant s atN o. 06- 3095

v . DuBO I S AREA SCHO OL D I STRI CT; SH A R O N K I R K , i n heroffi ci al capa ci t yas Super i nt endentof D uB oi s A r ea School D i s t r i ct ( D

. C

. C i vi l A ct i on 05- cv- 0203)

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( H onor abl e A r t hurJ

. Schw ab)

A r gued N ovember6, 2007
B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , A M B R O a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudges

. ( Fi l ed: A ugus t21, 2008 )4 M I CH AE L P

. F AR RI S , E S QUI RE ( AR GUE D) J AM ES R. M ASON, I I I , ES QUI RE H om e School L egal D efe ns e A s s oci at i on 1 P a trick H e n ryC irc le Pur cel l vi l l e, V i r gi ni a 20132- 0000 A tto rn e y s f

o r A p p e llan ts CARL P

. BEARD, J R. , ES QUI RE P ATRI CK J

. F ANELL I , ES QUI RE A n d rew s & B ea rd 3366 L ynnw ood D r i ve P. O

. B ox 1311 A l t oona, Penns y l vani a 16603 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee, H om er - C ent erSchool D i s t r i ct CHRI S TI NA LANE, ES QUI RE A ndr ew s & Pr i ce 1500 A r dm or e B oul evar d, Sui t e 506 Pi t t s bur gh, Penns y l vani a 15221 A t t orneyfor A pp el l ees, H o m e r-C e n ter S c h o o l D istric t, T itu sv ill e A re a S c h o o l D istric t, B risto l T o w n sh ip S c h o o l D istric t, F ra n k lin R e g io n a l S c h o o l D istric t, St ephen V ak, i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas S u p e rin ten d e n t o f

F ra n k lin R e g io n a l S c h o o l D istric t, N or w i n School D i s t r i ct , D uB oi s A r ea School D i s t r i ct5 PATRI CI A K

. SM I TH, ESQU I RE K n o x M c L a u g h lin G o rn a ll & S e n n e tt 120 W es tT enth St r eet E r i e, Penns y l vani a 16501 A t t orneyfor A pp el l ees, T itu sv ill e A re a S c h o o l D istric t, J ohn D

. R eagl e, i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas A ct i ng Super i nt endent of T i tus vi l l e A r ea School D i s t r i ct
P AUL N. L AL L E Y, E S QUI RE ( AR GUE D) Le v i n Le g a l Gr o u p , P

. C. 1 3 0 1 M aso n s M il l B u sine ss P ark 1800 B yberr yR oad H unt i ngdon V al l ey , Penns y l vani a 19006 A t t orneyfor A pp el l ees, B risto l T o w n sh ip S c h o o l D istric t, R egi na C es ar i o, i n heroffi ci al capa ci t yas Super i nt endentof B r i s t ol T ow ns hi p School D i s t r i ct
M I CHAEL L

. BRUNGO, ES QUI RE RONALD R. LUCAS , J R. , ES QUI RE ALF RED C. M AI EL LO, ES QUI RE M a i e l l o Bru n g o & M a i e l l o , LLP 3301 M cC r adyR oad O n e C h u rch il l Pa rk Pi t t s bur gh, Penns y l vani a 15235 A t t orney s for A pp el l ees, N o rw in S c h o o l D istric t,6 R i char d W at s on, i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas S u p e rin ten d e n t o f

N o rw in S c h o o l D istric t, D u B o is A re a S c h o o l D istric t, Shar on K i r k, i n heroffi ci al capa ci t yas Super i nt endentof D uB oi s A r ea School D i s t r i ct CHRI S TOP HER C. LUND, ES QUI RE Dec h e r tLLP C i r a C entr e, 18t h Fl oor 2929 A r ch St r eet Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19104 A tto rn e yf

o r A m icu s C u ria e -A p p e llan t, A m e ric a n C iv il L ib e rties U n io n o f P e n n sy lv a n ia
ANN G. S T. LE DGER, ES QUI RE O f f ice o f A tto rn e yG e n e ra l o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia D epart m entof Educat i on 333 M arketSt r eet , Sui t e 911 H arr i s bur g, Penns y l vani a 17126 A t t or neyforA m i cus C ur i ae- A ppel l ee, Penns y l vani a D epart m entof Educat i on S EAN A. F I EL DS, ES QUI RE Penns y l vani a School B oar ds A s s oci at i on 400 B entC r eek Boul evar d, P. O

. B ox 2042 M echa ni cs bur g, Penns y l vani a 17055 A t t or neyforA m i cus C ur i ae- A ppel l ee, Penns y l vani a School B oar ds A s s oci at i on7 J EF F REY I

. P ASE K, ES QUI RE C ozen & O ' C onnor 1900 M arketSt r eet , 3r d Fl oor Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19103 A t t or neyforA m i cus C ur i ae- A ppel l ee, Jew ish S o cial P o li cyA cti o n N etw o rk

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

P E R C U R I A M.
A ti s su e is w hethercert ai n par ent s w ho hom e- s chool t h ei rchi l dr en mustcompl yw i t h the r epor t i ng and r evi ew r e q u i r e me n t s o f

P e n n s y l v a n i a ’ s c o mp u l s o r ye d u c a t i o n l a w. C o m p lian c e , the p a re n ts c o n ten d , w o u ld v io late th e ir sin c e re ly h e ld r e lig io u s b e lief

s. T h e C o m m o n w e a lth o f P e n n sy lv a n ia demurs , cont endi ng i t s compul s oryeducat i on l aw nei t her s ubs t ant i al l y bur dens the fr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on nor t r ans gr es s es neutr al appl i cat i on t o al l ci t i zens , and s erves an i m por t ants t at e i nt er es t i n ens ur i ng a m i ni m al l evel of educ at i on f o r a ll c h ild re n . Pl ai nt i ffs appea l fr om t he gra nt of sum m ary j udgm entfor defe ndant s i n an ac t i on s eeki ng decl ar at oryr el i ef a nd an i nj u n c t i o n p r o h i b i t i n g e n f o r c e me n t o f 2 4 Pa

. St a t
. Ann

. § 13- 1 3 2 7

. 1 (“A ct 16 9 ”) a n d p rose cu ti o n u n d er P en n sy lvan ia’sW e r e fe rt o Hom e r - Cent e rSc ho ol D i st ri ct , J os e ph F. 1 M a r c o lin e , N o rw in S c h o o l D istric t, R ich a rd W a tso n , F ra n k lin R e g io n a l S c h o o l D istric t, S tep h e n V a k , B risto l T o w n sh ip S c h o o l D istric t, R e g i n a C e sa rio , T itu sv ill e A re a S c h o o l D istric t, Jo h n D

. R ea g le, D u B o is A rea S ch o o l D istri ct an d S h aro n K irk c o lle c tiv e ly as th e “ s c h o o l d is tr ic ts .” T he “Par ent s ” ar e D arr el l and K athl een Com bs , T hom as and 2 T i m ar i Pr evi s h, M ark and M ary al i ce N ew born, T hom as and B abett e H anki n, D ougl as and Shar i N el s on, and St even a nd M eg W eb er. 8 c o m p u lso rye d u c a tio n law s. D e f e n d a n ts a re sc h o o l d istric ts in Penns y l vani a and supe r i nt endent s named i n thei roffi ci al c a p a c ity

. P lain tiff

s a re six f

a m ili e s w h o h o m e -sc h o o l th e ir 1 chi l dr en. 2 Th e Co mmo n we a l th o f

P e n n s y l v a n i a ’ s e d u c a t i o n s y s t e m, as enac t ed byt he G ener al A s s embl y , al l ow s par ent s t o s at i s fy t h e c o m p u l s o r ya t t e n d a n c e r e q u i r e m e n tth r o u g h “ h o me educa t i on pr ogr ams. ” Par ent s s upervi s i ng t he hom e educ at i on pr ogr ams m us tpr ovi de i ns t ruct i on fora mi ni m um num berof day s a n d h o u r s i n c e r t a i n s u b j e c t s a n d s u b mi t a p o r t f o l i o of t eac hi ng l ogs and t he chi l dr en’ s w or k pr oduct forr evi ew . T he l ocal s chool di s t r i ctr evi ew s the h o m e educ at i on pr ogr ams for com pli ance w ith the m i nim um ho urs of i nst ruct i on and cou rs e r equi r e me n t s a n d d e t e rmi nes w hethereac h s tudentdemonstr at es pr ogr es s i n t he over al l pr ogr am. T he s chool di s t r i ctdoes not9 r e v i e w t h e e d u c a t i on a l c o n t e n t , t e x tb o o k s , c u r r i c u l u m, in s tru c tio n a l m a te ri a ls , o r m e th o d o lo g yo f th e p ro g ra m . P a re n ts, w h o h o m e -sc h o o l th e ir c h ild re n b a se d o n th e ir s i ncer el yhel d r el i gi ous bel i efs , have s ued th e i rr e s p e c t i v e s chool di s t r i ct s and s chool s uper i nt endent s. Par ent s cont end the A ct 1 6 9 re c o rd -k e e p in g re q u ire m e n ts a n d th e su b se q u e n t p o rtf o lio r e v i e w p l a c e a s u b s t a n t i a l b u r d e n o n t h e i r f r e e e x e r ci s e of r el i gion

. T heys eek a n exempt i on fr om the A ct169 r equi r ement s and r eques t decl ar at ory and i nj unct i ve r el i ef on t he gr ounds t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f Act 1 6 9 v i o l a t e t h e Fi r s tand Four t eenth Am endment s of the C ons t i tut i on of the U ni t ed St at es and the Penns y l vani a R el i gi ous Fr eedom P r ot ect i on A ct ( “R FPA ”) , 71 Pa. St at
. A nn. §§ 2401–2407. I

. Par ent s have home- s chool ed their chi l dr en form any y ear s . A l l s i x fami l i es ar e C hri sti ans, butof di ffe r ent denom ination s . T heyhol d i n comm on a r el i gi ous bel i ef that “educ at i on of t hei r chi l dr en, notm er el ythe r el i gi ous educa t i on, i s r el i gi on” a n d t hatG od has as s i gned r el i gi ous m att er s t o the excl us i ve j ur i s di ct i on of t he fam i l y . A ccor di ngl y , beca us e G od h a s g iv e n P a re n ts th e so le r e sp o n s ib ili tyf o r e d u c a tin g th e ir chi l dr en, t he s chool di s t r i ct s ’ r eport ing r equi r ement s and

“ d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w” o v e r t h e i r h o me e d u c a t i on pr o g r a ms vi ol at e thei rfr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on. I n 2002, t he C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a pas s ed the R el i gi ous Fr eedom Prot ect i on A ct
. T he s tatut e r equi r es t heT hom as and B abett e H anki n have never compl i ed w i t h A ct 3 1 6 9

. See 71 Pa. St at
. A nn. § 2405( b) ( r equi r i ng, pr i ort o br i ngi ng 4 an act i on i n cour t , t he par t y t o pr ovi de the age ncyw i t h w r i t t en not i ce) ; § 2405( d) ( t he agenc y “may r emedythe s u bs t ant i al b u r d e n o n t h e p e r s o n ’ s f r e e e x e r c i s e o f r e l i g i o n ” w i t h i n 3 0 d a ys o f th e w ritten n o tice ). D a rre ll an d K a th lee n C o m b s r e f u se d to su b m it th e re q u ire d a f

f id a v its a n d p o rtf

o lio s, th e re b yc e a sin g to compl yw i t h A ct169. 10 C om m onw eal t h t o j us t i fy s ubs t ant i al bur dens on r el i gi ous fr ee exerci se w i t h a com pell i ng i nter estand a show i ng t hat the leas t re stric tiv e m e a n s h a s b e e n e m p lo y e d to sa tisf yth a t in ter e st. P ri or t o the passage of the R el i gious F reedom P rot ect i on A c t, m anyof the Par ent s compl i ed w i t h t he A ct169 hom e educ at i on pr ogr am r equi r ement s . Pr e- R FPA , t her e i s no evi dence t hatt he 3 s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s e v e rq u e s t i o n e do ri n t e r f e r e d wi t h P a r e n t s ’ h o me e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s ’ e d u c a t i o n a l c o n t e n t , m e t h o d o l o g y, curr i cul um , orm at er i al s . O n s om e occ as i on s, t he s chool di s t r i ct s r equi r ed Par ent s t o s uppl ementt hei rl ogs and por t fol i os w i t h addi t i onal i nform at i on. B ut Par ent s ar e unabl e t o i dent i fy an i ns t ance i n w hich the s chool di s t r i ct s r ej ect ed anypar tof th e irh o m e e d u c a tio n p ro g ra m . N evert hel es s , pos t
- R FPA , Par ent s not i fi ed the s chool di s t r i ct s t hatA ct 169 s ubs t ant i al l ybur dens t hei rfr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on and s oughtan exe m pt i on fr om compl i ance . T he s chool 411 di s t r i ct s r efus ed t o gr ant Par ent s an exempt i on fr om A ct169 and t hr eat ened or , i n s om e cas es , i ni t i at ed cr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons for t ru a n c y. I n r es pons e, Par ent s s ued the sc h o o l di s t r i ct s i n var i ous s t at e and f

eder al cour t s s eeki ng decl ar at oryand i nj unct i ve r el i ef undert he Fi r s t and F our t eenth A m endment s t o t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on, 42 U

. S. C

. § 1983, and R FPA

. U l t i m at el y , t he cas es ended up be for e the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he W e ste rn D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia, w h ic h c o n so lid a ted th e six cas es forpr e- t r i al and s um m aryj udgm entpurpos es . U pon cons entof the part i es , di s coveryw as l i m i t ed t o “thr es hol d l egal i ssues” such as w hether A ct 16 9 sub st anti al l ybu rdened P arent s’ fre e e x erc ise o f reli g ion u n d er the R F P A an d the p rop er stan d ard of r evi ew forPar ent s ’ fede r al cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s . T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt e n g a g e d in t w o ro u n d s o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n s . T he fi r s tr ound addressed faci al chal l enges t o A ct169. Par ent s fi l ed a cons ol i dat ed m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entand t he s chool di s t r i ct s fi l ed a cons ol i dat ed oppos i t i on, butdi d not fil e a cro ss-m o ti o n fo r su m m ary jud g m en t. T h e D istri ct C o u rt d e n ie d P a re n ts ’ m o tio n . C o m b s v . H o m e r C tr. Sc h . D ist. , 2005 W L 3338885 ( W

. D

. Pa. D ec. 8, 2005)

. I n t he s econd r ound, the s chool di s t r i ct s fi l ed a m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entaddr es s i ng bot h Par ent s ’ fac i al and “a s appl i ed” c hal l enges t o A ct169. T he D i s t r i ctC our t g ran te d t he s chool di s tr i ct s ’ m ot i on, concl udi ng t hat( 1) Par ent s fai l ed t o pr ove a “s ubs t ant i al bur den” on the fr ee e x e rc is e o f

re lig io n , a s d e f

in e d b yR F P A , C om bs v. H om er C tr. Sc h . D ist. , 4 68 F. Supp. 2d 738, 771 ( W

. D

. Pa. 2006) , and ( 2)T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o r ej ect ed Par ent s ’ cl ai m s bas ed upon 5 t he Est abl i s hm entC l aus e of the F ir s tA m endment , the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e o f the Four t eenth A m endmentand the Fr ee S p e e c h C la u s e o f

th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t. I d. at 778. T he St at ementof I s s ues i n Par ent s ’ br i e f o nl yaddr es s es cl ai m s under R F P A a n d th e F re e E x e rc is e C la u s e . T he D i s t r i ct C our t had j ur i s di ct i on under 28 U

. S

. C

. §§ 1331, 1343( a) ( 3) , 1367 and 1441. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overt he a p p e a l u n d e r2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1

. “ W e r e v i e w a d i s t r i c tc o u r t 's g ra n t o f su m m a r y jud g m e n t de novo

. ” Lighthous e I ns t
. f or E vangel is m , I

nc. v. C i t y of Long B r anch , 510 F. 3d 253, 260 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng G ot t

s hal lv. C ons ol

. R ai lC or p. , 56 F. 3d 530, 5 3 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 )). S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is o n lya p p ro p ria te if t h ere are no genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac tand the s chool di s t r i ct s ar e ent i t l ed t o j udgm ent as a m att er of l aw . Fed. R

. C i v. P

. 5 6 (c). “In rev iew in g th e D istri ct C o u rt ' s g ran t of su m m ary j udgm ent , w e vi ew t he fa ct s i n a l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he n o n m o v in g p a rt y [ :] ” P a re n ts
. L ig h th o u se In st. , 510 F. 3d at260. I n a d ict um , the D istri ct C o u rtstat ed : “E v en if th is C o u rt 6 w e re to a p p lya ‘h yb rid rig h ts’ h e ig h ten e d o r stric t sc ru tin ytes t, h o w e v e r , P lain tiff ’s f

re e e x e rc ise c h a llen g e to A c t 1 6 9 o n its fac e w oul d s t i l l fai l

. ” I d. a t 7 7 7

. 12 A ct 169 i s a neutr al l aw of gene r al appl i cabi l i t y , s at i s fy i ng r a t i o n a l b a s i s r e v i e w, i d. at 7 7 7

. A s a re su lt , the D istri ct C o u rt 5 di d notdeci de i s s ues of com pel l i ng governm ent al i nt er es tor l eastres t ri ct i ve m eans. 6A s not ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t , “[a ] n educa t ed ci t i zenryhas 7 been r ecogni zed a s cr i t i cal t o the s ucce s s and w el l

- bei ng of the N at i on and i t s peopl e fr om t he t i m e of i t s cr eat i on. ” C om bs , 468 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 7 4 0 -4 1 . P e n n sy lv a n ia’ s c o m m itm e n t to p u b lic e d u c a tio n is f

ir m ly ro o te d in its h is to ry. S e e i d. at 74 1 -43

. In 1682, t he “G r eat L aw ” pas s ed by t he Fi r s t G ener al A s s embl yof P e n nsy l van i a “i ncluded a provis i on for the creat i on of sch oo ls acr o ss Pennsy l vani a. ” I d. at742. Fur t herm or e, t he var i ous P e n n sy lv a n ia c o n stitu tio n s h a v e in c lu d e d p ro v isio n s f o r p u b lic e d u c a tio n . I

d. (c iti n g th e 1 7 7 6 p r o v isio n a l P e n n sy lv a n ia C o n sti tuti o n , the P en n sy lvan ia C o n sti tuti o n o f 18 7 4 , an d A rt
. II, § 14 of the Penns y l vani a C ons t i tut i on i n i t s curr entform )

. T he c u rrentP enn sy l van i a C od e descri bes t he p urpose o f pu b lic educa t i on as “pr epa r[ing] s tudent s foradul tl i fe” and cr eat i ng “s el f- di r ect ed, l i fe- l ong l earner s and r es pons i bl e, i nvol ved cit izen s. ” 2 2 P a. C o d e. § 4

. 1 1 (b) (2 0 0 8 ). 13 II. A

. T he Penns y l v a n i a Con s t i tut i on m andat es thatthe G ener al A s s embl y“pr ovi de forthe mai nt enanc e and su p p or tof a t hor ough and ef

fi ci ents y s t em of publ i c educat i on t o s erve the needs of the C om m onw eal t h. ” Pa. C ons t
. , A r t
. I I I , § 1 4. T he G ener al A s s embl yhas carr i ed outi t s cons t i tut i onal char ge by e n a c tin g th e P u b lic S c h o o l C o d e . See 24 Pa. St at
. A nn. §§ 1- 101 t o 27- 2702. 7A chi l d m ays at i s fy t he com pul s oryatt endanc e r equi r ement 8 byat t endi ng a publ i c days chool

. 24 Pa. St at
. A nn. § 13- 1327( a)

. “I n l i eu of s uch s chool attendance” a nychi l d fi ft een y ear s of age w ho r ece i ves appr oval of the di s t r i cts uper i nt endent and the Secr et aryof Educat i on, oranychi l d s i xt een y ear s of age w h o re c e iv e s ap p ro v a l o f th e d istric t su p e rin ten d e n t, m a ye n ro ll in a tr a d e o r b u s in e s s s c h o o l. I d. A tten d a n c e a t eith e r p u b lic d a ysc h o o l o r a tra d e o r b u s in e ss sc h o o l sa tisf ies th e m a n d a te 14 T he Publ i c S ch o o l C ode r equi r es “eve r ychi l d of c o m p u lso rysc h o o l ag e h a v in g a leg a l re sid e n c e in th is C o m m o n w e a lth

. . . to a tten d a d a y sc h o o l in w h ich th e su b jec ts and ac t i vi t i es pr es cr i bed by t he s t andar ds of t he St at e B oar d of E ducat i on ar e t aughti n the Engl i s h l anguage . ” 24 Pa. St at
. A nn. § 13- 1327( a)

. “C om pul s orys chool age” i s defi ned as “the p e rio d o f a c h ild ’s lif

e f ro m th e tim e th e c h ild ’s p a re n ts e lec t to have the chi l d ent ers chool , w hi ch shal l be not l at erthan atthe age of ei ght( 8) y ear s , unt i l the age of s event een ( 17) y ear s . ” I d. § 1 3 -1 3 2 6

. See a l

so 22 Pa. C ode § 11. 13 ( 2008)

. A s tudent w h o “ h o ld s a c e rtific a te o f g ra d u a tio n f

ro m a re g u lar ly ac cre d it ed sen ior h igh sch o o l” sa tisf ies th e c o m p u lsory at t endanc e r equi r ementand i s no l ongerof compulsorys chool age. 24 Pa. St at
. A nn. § 13- 1326. T h e P e n n sy lv a n ia G e n e ra l A ss e m b lyc u rre n tlyp e rm its par ent s t o c hoos e among foural t ernat i ve ca t egor i es of educ at i on to sa tisf yth e c o m p u lso rya tten d a n c e re q u ire m e n t: (1 ) a p u b lic s c h o o l w ith c e rt a in tr a d e s c h o o l o p tio n s , i d. § 13- 1327( a) ; ( 2) 8t hat“eve r ypar ent , guar di an, orotherper s on havi ng contr ol or c h a rg e of an ychil d o r chi l dren of com pu l soryschoo l age is r equi r ed t o s end such chi l d or chi l dr en t o a days chool i n w hi ch t he s ubj ect s and ac t i vi t i es pr es cr i bed byt he st an d ar ds of the S t a t e B o a rd o f

E d u c a tio n a re ta u g h t in th e E n g lis h la n g u a g e .” I d. A chi l d m ays at i s fyt he com pul s ory att endanc e r equi r ement 9 byat t end ing “ an ac cr edi t ed orl i cens ed pr i vat e s chool , ” 22 Pa. C ode § 11. 32 ( 2008) , “i n w h ich t he s ubj ect s and ac t i vi t i es p resc ri b ed b y the s tand ard s o f th e S tat e B o ard o f E d u ca ti o n are taug h t i n the E n g li sh lang u ag e.” 24 P a. S tat
. A n n . § 1 3 -13 2 7 (a).

“ T h e c e rtific a te o f

a n y p rin c ip a l o r tea c h e r o f a p riv a te s c h o o l, o r o f a n yin stitu tio n . . .” m u st “ se t[ ] f o rth th a t th e w o rk o f

sa id s c h o o l i s i n c o mpl i a n c e wi t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s act
. ” I d. A ls o , re g u la r d a ily in s tru c tio n in th e E n g lis h la n g u a g e b y a p ro p e rl yq u ali fied p ri v ate tutor sa ti sfies th e c o m p u lsory a tte n d a n c e re q u ir e m e n t. I d. T he Penns y l vani a A dm i ni s t r at i ve C ode enumer at es m i ni m um h o u r s of i ns t ruct i on and the r equi r ed s ubj ect s atbot h t he el ement ary and sec ondary s chool l evel s . 22 P a. C o d e § 1 1

. 3 1 (20 0 8 ). A chi l d m ayenr ol l i n a days chool “oper at ed bya bona f i de 10 ch u rch o r oth er reli g iou s b o d y . ” 2 4 P a. S tat
. A n n . § 1 3 -13 2 7 (b). 15 a p ri v a te a c a d e m ic d a y s c h o o l o r p ri v a te tu to ri n g , i d. ; ( 3) a day 9 s c h o o l o p e ra te d b y a “ b o n a f id e c h u rc h o r o th e r r e lig io u s b o d y ,” i d. § 13- 1327( b) ; or( 4) a “home educa t i on pr ogr am, ” i d. § 13- 10T he s chool m us tm eetm i ni m um stan dar ds forhour s of in s tru c tio n a n d te a c h th e s u b je c ts e n u m e ra te d in th e s ta tu te
. See i d. ( “[A ] m i ni m um of one hundr ed ei ghty( 180) day s of i ns t ruct i on orni ne hundr ed ( 900) hour s of in stru ct i on pery ear att he el ement aryl evel orni ne hundr ed ni nety(99 0 ) hour s per y e a r o f in s tr u c tio n a t th e se c o n d a rylev e l . .

. . ” ); i d. § 13- 1327( b) ( 1) ( r equi r i ng atthe el ement arys chool l evel , the fol l ow i ng cour s es : “Engl i s h, t o i ncl u d e s pel l i ng, r eadi ng and w r i t i ng; ar i t hm et i c; s ci ence ; geogr aphy ; hi s t oryof t he U ni t ed St at es and Penns y l v ani a; ci vi cs ; s afe t yeduca t i on, i ncl udi ng r egul arand cont i nuous i ns t ruct i on i n t he danger s and pr event i on of fi r es ; heal t h and phy s i ol ogy ; phy s i cal educa t i on; m us i c; and a rt” ); i d. § 13- 1327( b) ( 2) ( “A tt he s econda r ysch o o l l evel , t he fol l ow i ng course s [m us tbe] offe r ed: E ngl i s h, t o i ncl ude l anguage , l i t er atur e, s peec h and composi t i on; s ci ence , t o i n c l ude bi ol ogyand che m i s t r y ; geogr aphy ; s oci al s tudi es , t o i ncl ude ci vi c s , e c o n o mi c s , wor l d h i s t o r y , h i s t o r yo f th e Uni t e d St a t es and Penns y l vani a; a for ei gn l anguage ; m athemat i cs , t o i ncl ude g e n e ra l m a th e m a tics a n d sta tistics , alg e b ra a n d g e o m e try ; ar t; m u sic ; p h y sic a l ed u c a tio n ; h e a lth a n d p h y sio lo g y ; an d sa f e ty educa t i on, i ncl udi ng r egul arand cont i nuous i ns t ruct i on i n t he d an g ers a n d p rev en ti o n o f f ir es.”). F u rth e r, th e p rin c ip a l m u st f ile a n o tar ize d a f

f id a v it w ith t he D epart m entof Educat i on s ett i ng for t h t hatthe r equi r ed s ubj ect s ar e off

er ed i n t he Engl i s h l anguage , w hethert he s chool is a n o n p ro f

it o rg a n iza tio n , an d th a t th e sc h o o l is o th e rw ise in

16c o m p lia n c e w ith th e p ro v is io n s o f th e P u b lic S c h o o l C o d e . I d. § 1 3 -1 3 2 7 (b ). A l t hough t he s t atut e r equi r es r el i gi o u s school s t o t eac h c e rta in su b

jec ts, “ [ i]t is th e p o li c y o f th e C o m m o n w e a lth to pr es erve the pr i m aryr i ghtand the obl i gat i on of the par entor p a re n ts
. . . to c h o o s e th e e d u c a tio n a n d tr a in in g f o r s u c h c h ild .” I d. T hus , “[ n ]ot hi ng cont ai ned i n thi s acts hal l empow ert he C o m m o n w e a lth , an y o f its o f f ice rs, a g e n c ies o r su b d iv isio n s to ap p rov e the co u rse c o n tent, fa cu lty , staff o r disciplinary r equi r ement s of any r el i gi ous s chool r efe r r ed t o i n this sect i on w i t houtt he cons entof s ai d s chool

. ” I d. A c t 1 6 9 e n u m e ra tes th e f o llo w in g “ m in im u m c o u rse s in 11 gr ades ni ne thr ough t w el ve” a s a r equi r ementforgr aduat i on fr om a home educat i on pr ogr am: foury ear s of Engl i s h; thr ee y ear s of m athemat i cs ; t hr ee y ear s of s ci ence ; thr ee y ear s of 17 1 3 2 7 .1

. Si gni fi can t to thi s appea l , the Penns y l vani a G ener al A s s e m b ly p e rm itte d th e f o u rt h a lte rn a tiv e in 1 9 8 8

. See A ct169 of 198 8, P

. L

. 13 21 , N o. 16 9, D ecem ber 21 , 19 88 , 24 P a. S tat. A n n . § 1 3 -13 2 7 .1 . U n d er A ct 16 9 , a c h il d instructed u n d er a “home educat i on pr ogr am” sa t i s fi es the compul s oryat t endanc e re q u ir e m e n t. I

d. A hom e educa t i on pr ogr am m us t s at i s fyt he sa m e m in im u m h o u rs o f in stru c tio n re q u ire m e n ts a n d a lm o st a ll of the same s ubj ect m at t er r equi r ement s as a s chool oper at ed by a b o n a f i d e c h u r c h o rr e l i g i o u s b o d y. I d. §§ 13- 1327( b ), 13- 11so c ial s tu d ie s; tw o y e a rs o f a rts a n d h u m a n iti e s. 2 4 P a . S tat. A nn. § 13- 1327. 1( d)

. B ut , i n contr as tt o § 13- 1327( b) , A ct169 l eaves t he dec i s i on w hethert o t eac h cert ai n s econda r yl evel subject s – econ om i cs, biology , chem i stry , forei gn l ang uag es, trig o n o m e try , o r o th e r a g e -a p p ro p ri a te c o u rse s a s c o n tain e d in 22 Pa. C ode C h. 4 – t o t he di s cr et i on of the s upervis orof the h o m e e d u ca ti o n p rog ram . 2 4 P a. S tat
. A n n . § 1 3 -13 2 7

. 1 (c)(2).

18 1 3 2 7

. 1 (c). Pr i ort o t he c o m m encem entof a home educa t i on pr ogr am, and ther eaf

t eron A ugus t 1 of eac h y ear , t he par entor guar di an of the chil d m us tfi l e an a ffi davi tw i t h the di s t r i ct s uper i nt endents et t i ng for t h: t he name of t he s upervi s orof the home educat i on pr ogr am w ho s hal l be r es pons i bl e fort he pr ovi s i on of i ns t ruct i on; t he nam e and age of eac h chi l d w ho s hal l par t i ci pat e . . . ; t h e ad dr es s and t el ephone numberof th e . . . s i t e; t hats uch s ubj ect s as r equi r ed by law ar e off er ed i n t he E ngl i s h l anguage , incl udi ng an out l i ne of p ro p o s e d e d u c a tio n o b

je c t i v e s b ys u b

je c t a re a . . . ; and t hat the h om e edu cat i on program shall c o m p ly w ith th e p ro v is io n s o f th is s e c tio n . . . .I n addi t i on, t he af fi d av i tm us tpr ovi de evi dence thatthe 12 chi l d has been i m m uni zed a nd has r ece i ved the hea l t h and m edi cal s ervi ces r equi r ed for s tudent s of t he chi l d’ s age orgr ade l evel

. 24 Pa. St at
. A nn. § 13- 1327. 1( b) ( 1)

. Fur t her , “[t ] he aff i davi ts hal l cont ai n a ce r t i fi cat i on t o be si gned bythe s upervi s ort hatt he s upervi s or , al l adul t s l i vi ng i n the home and p e r s o n s h a v i n g l e g a l c u s t o d yo f a c h i l d o rc h i l d r e n i n a h o me educat ion p r ogr am have notbeen c onvi ct ed of the cr i m i nal offe ns es enumer at ed i n s ubs ect i on ( e) of s ect i on 111 w i t hi n fi ve y ear s im m edi at el ypr ece di ng the dat e of the af fi davi t
. ” I

d. “Supervi s or ” i s defi ned by A ct 169 as “the par ent orguar di an or s uch per so n h av i ng l egal cus t odyof the chi l d orchi l dr en w ho s hal l be r es pons i b le f

o r the pr ovi s i on of i ns t ruct i on, pr ovi ded th a t s u c h p e rs o n h a s a h ig h s c h o o l d ip lo m a o r i ts e q u iv a le n t.” I d. § 1 3 -13 2 7

. 1 (a). 19 I d. § 1 3 -13 2 7

. 1 (b)(1 ). 12 T he s uper i nt endent of the publ i c s chool di s t r i ctof the c h ild ’s r e sid e n c e is c h a rg e d w ith e n su rin g th a t e a c h c h ild is r ece i vi ng “appr opr i at e educa t i on, ” w hi ch i s defi ned byA ct169 a s “ a p ro g ra m c o n sis tin g o f in stru c tio n in th e re q u ire d su b jec ts forthe t i m e r equi r ed i n t h is actand i n w hi ch the s tudent demonstr at es s us t ai ned pr ogr es s i n t he over al l pr ogr am. ” I d. § 13- 1327. 1( a)

. I n or dert o demonstr at e t o the s uper i nt endentt hat

“ a p p ro p ria te e d u c a tio n ” is ta k in g p lac e , at th e e n d o f e a c h p u b lic schoo l y ear the supervi sor of the h om e edu cat i on program m ust“I n addi t i on, i f the s uper i nt endent h as a r eas onabl e bel i ef 13 t hat , atanyt i m e dur i ng the s chool y ear , appr opr i at e educ at i on m a y n o tb e o c c u r r i n g i n t h e h o m e e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m , h e m a y .

. . re q u ir e d o c u m e n ta tio n . . . to b e s u b m itte d to th e d is tr ic t . . . .” 2 4 P a . S ta t. A n n . § 1 3 -1 3 2 7 .1 (h ). 20 su b m it a f

ile w ith tw o typ e s o f

d o c u m e n tatio n . F irst, th e f ile 13 m ustcon t ai n a p ort foli o o f records and m at eri al s: T he por t fol i o s hal l cons i s tof a l og, m ade cont emporaneous l yw i t h t he i ns t ruct i on, w hi ch des igna t es byt i t l e the r eadi ng m at er i al s us ed, s ampl es of anyw r i t i ngs , w or ks heet s , w or kbooks orcr eat i ve mat er i al s us ed ordevel o p ed byt he stu d e n t an d in g ra d e s th re e , fiv e a n d e ig h t re su lts of nat i onal l ynor m ed s t andar di zed a chi evement t es t s i n r eadi ng/ l anguage ar t s and mat hemat i cs or t he r esul t s of Stat ew i de t est s adm i nis t ered i n these g ra d e lev e ls. T h e d e p a rtm e n t sh a ll e sta b lish a list, w it h a m in im u m o f

f iv e tes ts, o f

n a tio n a lly nor m ed s t andar di zed t es t s fr om w hi ch the su p e rv iso r o f

th e h o m e e d u c a tio n p ro g ra m sh a ll s el ecta t es tt o be admi ni s t er ed i f the s upervi s or does notchoos e t h e S tat ew i de t es t s . A tt he di s c r e t i o n o f t h e s u p e r v i s o r , t h e p o r t f o l i o m ay i n clude t he r es ul t s of nat i onal l ynor m ed s t andar di zed a chi eveme n tt es t s forot hers ubj ect are as o r gra d e l ev els. T h e su p erv isor sh all en su reA ct 169 perm i t s eval uat i on by“a l i cens ed cl i ni cal ors chool 14 ps y chol ogi s tora t eac hercert i fi ed byt he C om m onw eal t h orby a nonpubl i c s chool t eac her or admi ni s t r at or . ” 24 Pa. St at
. A nn. § 13- 1327. 1( e) ( 2)

. “A nys uch n o n publ i c t eac heror admi ni s t r ator s hal l have a tl eas tt w o y ear s of t eac hi ng e x p e rie n c e in a P e n n sy lv a n ia p u b lic o r n o n p u b lic s c h o o l w ith in the last t en y ear s . ” I

d. Fur t her , anynonpubl i c t eac heror admi ni s t r at ororcert i fi ed t eac herm us t h ave the r equi r ed “e x p erien ce at th e e lem en taryleve l to ev alua te elem en tary stud en ts or at t h e se co n d aryleve l t o ev alua te sec o n d ary s tudent s . ” I

d. A t eache r oradm i nis t rat or w ho evaluat es a po r t f o l i o a tth e e l e me n t a r yl e v e l ( g r a d es k i n d e r g a r t e n t h r o u g h s i x ) s h a l l h a v e a tl e a s tt wo y ear s of expe r i ence i n gr adi ng anyof the fol l ow i ng s ubj ect s : E ngl i s h, t o i ncl ude s pel li n g, r eadi ng and w r i t i ng ; a r i t h met i c; s ci ence ; geogr aphy ; hi s t oryof the U n it ed St at es and

21 t hatt he nat i onal l y n o rm ed s t andar di zed t es t s or t he St at ew i de t ests s hal l notbe admi ni s t er ed by t he chi l d' s par entorguar di an. I d. § 1 3 -1 3 2 7 .1 (e )( 1 ). Second, t he s upervi s orof the hom e educat i on pr ogr am m u s t o b ta in a n a n n u a l w ri tte n e v a lu a tio n o f th e c h ild ’s w o rk

. I

d. § 13- 1327. 1( e)( 2 ). T he s upervi s orm aychoos e anyper s on qual i fi ed u n d erA ct169 t o m ake the eva l uat i on. T he 14P enn sy l van i a; and ci vics

. I d. § 1 3 -13 2 7

. 1 (e)(1)(i)

. A t eache r or adm i nis t rat or w ho evaluat es a por t fol i o att he s econ daryl evel ( gr ades s even t hr ough t w el ve) s hal l have a tl eas ttw o y ea r s of exper i ence i n gradi ng anyof the fol l ow i ng s ubj ect s : E ngl i s h, t o i ncl ude l anguage , l i t er atur e, sp e e c h , re a d in g a n d c o m p o sitio n ; sc ien c e , to in c lu d e b io lo g y , c h e m istry a nd ph y si cs; geo graphy ; soci al stud i es, t o incl ud e econ om i cs, ci vi cs , w or l d hi s t ory , hi s t oryof t he U ni t ed St at es and Penns y l va n i a ; f o r e i g n l a n g uage; and m at hem a t i cs, t o incl ud e gen eral m at hem at i cs, a l g e b r a , t r i g o n o m e t r y, c a l c u l u s a n d g e o m e t r y. I d. § 1 3

- 1327. 1( e) ( 1) ( i i )

. “[T] he t erm ‘ gr adi ng’ s hal l m ean eval uat i on of cl as s w or k, hom ew or k, qui zze s , cl as s w or k -bas ed t es t s and pr epar ed t es t s r el at ed t o cl as s w or k s ubj ectm att er . ” I d. § 1 3 -1 3 2 7 .1 (e )( 1 )( iii)

. “A tt he re q ues tof the s upervi s or , per s ons w i t h ot her qual i fi cat i ons m ayconductt he eva l uat i on w i t h t he pr i orcons ent of the di s t r i ctof r es i dence s uper i nt endent

. I n no event s hal l the eval uat or be t he s upervi s or or t hei r s pous e. ” I d. § 13- 1 3 2 7

. 1 (e)(2). 22 evaluat i on m easures: t he s tudent ' s educa t i onal pr ogr es s . . . . T he eval uat i on s hal l al s o be bas ed on an i nt ervi ew ofT h e su p eri nt endentm aynotr el yupon t he out l i ne of 15 pr opos ed educ at i onal obj ect i ves pr ovi ded atthe be g i n n i n g o f the y earw hen m aki ng hi s “appr opr i at e educ at i on” det erm i nat i on. 2 4 P a . S ta t. A n n . § 1 3 -1 3 2 7 .1 (b )( 1 ). 23 th e c h ild a n d a re v iew o f th e p o rtf o lio re q u ire d in cl a u s e ( 1 ) a n d s h a l l c e r t i f ywhe t h e ro rn o tan appr opr i at e educ at i on i s occurr i ng. I d. B as ed upon the ent i r e fi l e – t he por t fol i o of r ecor ds and m at er i al s and the thi r d- par t yeval uat i on – the s uperintendent det erm ine s w hethert he home educat i on pr ogr am provi des t he c h ild w ith a n “ a p p ro p ri a te e d u c a tio n .” 15 I f the s uper i nt endent

. . . det erm i nes , bas ed on t he d o c u m e n tatio n p ro v id e d

. . . tha t ap p ro p ria te educa t i on i s nottaki ng pl ace fort he chi l d i n the h o m e e d u c a ti o n p r o g r a m , t h e s u p e r in te n d e n t s h a ll s e n d a l e t t e r . . . t o t h e s u p e r v i s o r o f t h e h o me educa t i on pr ogr am st at i n g thati n hi s opi ni on appr opr i at e educ at i on i s nott ak ing pl ace fort he c h ild in th e h o m e e d u c a tio n p ro g ra m a n d sh a ll r etur n al l document at i on, s peci fy i ng w hatas pect oras pect s of the document at i on ar e i nadequa t e. I d. § 13- 1327. 1( i )

. U pon r ece i pt of t he l ett er , t he s upervi s orhas t w enty day s “t o s ubm i taddi t i onal document at i on demonstr at i ng t hatappr opr i at e educ at i on i s t aki ng pl ace fort h e ch i l d i n theT h e “ h e a r i n g e x a m i n e r ” “ s h a l l n o tb e a n o f f i c e r , e m p l o ye 16 [s i c] o r a g en tof the D epart m entof Educat i on orof the s chool d i s t r i c to ri n t e r me d i a t e u n i to f r e s i d e n c e o f

t h e c h i l d i n t h e h o me educa t i on pr ogr am. ” I

d. § 1 3 -13 2 7

. 1 (a). I n l i eu of r ender ing a d ec isi on, the hea r i ng exami nerm ay 17

“ re q u ire th e e sta b lish m e n t o f a re m e dialedu catio n p lan m u tu a lly a g r e e d t o b yt h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n ta n d s u p e r v i s o ro f t h e h o me educa t i on pr ogr am w hi ch s hal l cont i nue the home ed u ca t i on p ro g ra m .” 2 4 P a . S ta t. A n n . § 1 3 -1 3 2 7 .1 (k ). 24 hom e educat i on pr ogr am. ” I d. § 13- 1327. 1(

j )

. I f t he addi t i onal document at i on i s not ti m el ys ubm i t t ed, the home educat i on p rog ram “sh all b e o u t of co m p li an ce ” w ith the co m p u lsory a tten d a n c e re q u ire m e n ts a n d th e stu d e n t m u st p ro m p tlye n ro ll i n ei t hera publ i c s chool , a nonpubl i c r el i gi ous s chool , ora l i cens ed p ri v a te s c h o o l. I

d. If th e su p e rin te n d e n t c o n c lu d e s th a t a ti m e ly a m e n d e df ile still fa ils to d e m o n stra te a p p ro p ria te e d u c a tio n , h e o r sh e w ill not i fyt he s upervi s orof hi s orherdet erm i nat i on . Fur t her , t he s upervi s orw i l l be gi ven a “ pr operhear i ng bya dul yqu al i fi ed a n d im p a rt i a l h e a ri n g e x a m in e r” w ith in th ir ty d a y s . I d. § 13- 1327. 1( k)

. “I f the hea r i ng exami ner fin d s t hatt he

16 d o c u m e n tatio n d o e s n o t in d ica te th a t ap p ro p ria te e d u c a tio n is t aking place i n the hom e edu cat i on program , ” t he stud ent m ust b e p ro m p tlye n ro lled in e ith e r a p u b lic s c h o o l, a n o n p u b lic re lig io u s sc h o o l, or a lice n se d p riv a te a c a d e m ic s c h o o l. I d. § 1725 13- 1327. 1( l )

. “The deci s i on of t he [hear i ng] exami nerm aybe appe aled byei t herthe s upervi s orof the home educat i on pr ogr am or the s uper i nt endent t o t he Secr et ary of E ducat i on or C om m onw eal t h C our t[of Penns y l vani a]

. ” I d. § 1 3 -13 2 7

. 1 (k). I n pr act i ce, t he s chool di s t r i ct s engage i n a l i m i t ed l evel o f o v e r s i g h t
. T h e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s r e q u i r e a mi n i mu m o f t wo cont act s w i t h t he St at e duri ng t he ca l endary ear– t he s ubm i s s i on of an a ffi davi tatt he begi n n ing o f the y earand the s ubm i s s i on of t he por t fol i o and eval uat i on at t he end of t he y ear . D epos i t i on t es t i m onyr evea l s t hats chool offi ci al s do notchec k i n on t he p rog ress o f h o m e e d u ca ti o n p ro g ram s d u ri n g the s ch o o l y ea r. Fur t herm or e, al l s chool offi ci al s depos ed ac kno w l edged that theyn ev er d isag ree d w ith o r rejected an ind ep en d en t eva luato r’s a ss e ss m e n t o f

th e h o m e e d u c a tio n p r o g ra m . S c h o o l o f f icia ls re v iew e d th e d isc lo su re s f o r co m p lian c e w ith th e sta tu te a n d , if al l t he r equi r ed di s cl os ur es w er e pr es ent ed, t he hom e educ at i on p ro g ra m w o u ld b e a p p ro v e d

. B

. A s n o ted , in 2 0 0 2 th e P e n n sy lv a n ia G e n e ra l A ss e m b ly e n a c ted th e R e li g io u s F re e d o m P ro tec tio n A c t. 71 P a . S tat. A nn. §§ 2401–2407. T i t l ed “[ a] n A ct p r ot ect i ng t he fr ee exer ci s e of r el i gi on; and pre s cr i bi ng t he condi t i ons underw hi ch governm entm ays ubs t ant i al l ybur den a per s on' s fr ee e xer ci s e of r el igion , ” I

d. § 2401, the R FPA w as bas ed on tw o l egi s l at i ve fi nd i ng s: (1) L aw s an d g o v e rnm en tal ac ti o n s w h ich a re26 f a c i a l l yn e u t r a l t o wa r d r e l i g i o n , a s we l l a s l a ws and gover nm ent al act i ons i nt ended t o i nt er fer e w i t h r el i gi ous exer ci s e, m ay h av e t he ef fec tof s ubs t ant i al ly bur deni ng t he fr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on. H ow ever , nei t herSt at e norl ocal governm ents houl d s ubs t ant ial l ybur den the fr ee exer ci s e of r el i g i on w i t hout compel l i ng j us t i fi cat i on. ( 2 ) T h e Ge n e r a l As s e mb l yi n t e n d s t h a ta l l l a ws w hi ch i thas her et ofore enac t ed orw i l l her eaf t er enac tand al l or di nance s and r egul at i ons w hi ch have been or w i l l be adopt ed byp o li t i cal su b di vi s i ons orexec ut i ve age nci es s hal l be cons t rued s o as t o avoi d the i m pos i t ion of s ubs t ant i al bur dens upon the fre e exe r ci s e of r el i gi on w i t houtcompel l i ng j us t i fi cat i on. I d. § 2402. U nderR FPA , “an a gency s hal l nots ubs t ant i al l ybur den a per s on’ s fr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on, i ncl udi ng any bur den w hi ch r es ul t s fr om a rul e of ge ner al appl i cabi l i t y , ” i d. § 2 40 4(a) , un l ess “the age ncypr oves , by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence , t hatt he bur den” i s “[i ] n fur t hera nce of a compel l i ng i nt er es tof the agenc y ” and i s “[t ] he l eas tr es t r i ct i ve means of furt her i ng the compel l i ng i nt er es t , ” i d. § 2 4 0 4 (b). T he G ene r al A s s embl ypr ovi des defi ni t i ons fors ever al keyt erm s i n s ect i on 2404. Fi r s t, “fr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on”A r t i cl e I , Sect i on 3 of t he Penns y lvan ia C o n s t i tut i on 18 provides: A l l m en have a natur al and i nd efeasi ble ri gh tto w o rs hi p A l m i ghtyG od acc or di ng t o the di ct at es of t hei r ow n cons ci ence s ; no m an ca n of r i ghtbe compel l ed t o at t end, er ect or s uppor t anypl ace of w o rsh ip , o r t o m a in tain a n y m in istry a g a in st h is con se nt; no hu m an au t ho ri t ycan, i n an ycase w hat ever , contr ol ori nt er fer e w i t h the r i ght s of cons ci ence , and no pr efe r ence s hal l everbe gi ven byl aw t o anyr el i gi o us es t abl i s hm ent s orm odes of w or s hi p. P a . C o n s t., A rt . I, § 3

. 27 m eans “[t ] he pr act i ce or obs ervance of r el i gi on unders ect i on 3 o f A rt ic le I o f

th e C o n s titu tio n o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia .” I

d. § 2403. 18 Second, “per s on” i s defi n ed as “[a ] n i ndi vi dual ora chur ch, as s oci at i on of chur ches orotherr el i gi ous or der , bodyor i ns t i tut i on w hic h qual i fi es forexempt i on fr om t axat i on under s ect i on 501( c) ( 3) or( d) of the Interna l Revenue Code of 1986 (P u b lic L a w 9 9 -5 1 4 , 2 6 U .S .C . § 5 0 1 ).” 7 1 P a . S ta t. A n n . § 2 4 0 3

. T h ir d , R F P A d ef ines “su b stan ti all yb u rde n ” a s “[ a]n a g e n c ya c tio n w h ich d o e s a n yo f th e f o llo w in g :” ( 1) Si gni fi cant l y cons t r ai ns ori nhi bi t s conductor e x p re ss io n m a n d a ted b ya p e rso n ’s sin c e re lyh e ld rel i gious bel i efs. (2 ) S ig n if

ica n tlyc u rta ils a p e rso n ’ s a b ili tyto28 expr es s adher ence t o t he per s on’ s r el i gi ous fai t h. (3 ) D e n ies a p e rso n a re a so n a b le o p p o rtu n ityto engage i n act i vi t i es w hi ch ar e funda m ent al t o the per s on’ s r el i gi on. ( 4) C om pel s conductor expr es s i on w hi ch vi ol at es a s peci fi c t enetof a pe r s on’ s r el i gi ous fai t h. I d. R FPA al l ow s a “pe r s on w h o se fr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on has been bur dened orl i kel y w i l l be bur dened i n vi ol at i on of [§ 2 4 0 4 ]” to b ri n g a c la im in a ju d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g . I d. § 2 4 0 5 (a). P r i o rt o b r i n g i n g a c l a i m , t h e “ p e r s o n ” m u s tn o t i f y th e a g e n c y, des cr i bi ng t he age ncyact i on and the manneri n w hi ch i tbur dens re lig io n . I

d. § 2405( b)

. A “per s on” w ho “pr oves , bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence , t hatt he per s on’ s fr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on has been bur dened .

. . i n vi ol at i o n o f [§ 2404] ” mayr ece i ve d ec laratoryo r i n

jun cti v e re lie f

. I

d. § 2 4 0 5 (f). M o n etary d a m a g e s a re n o t a v a ila b le

. I d. W ith li m it ed ex ce p ti o n s, 7 1 P a. S tat
. A n n . § 2 4 0 6 (a)– (b), R FPA appl i es “t o anySt at e orl ocal l aw oror di nance and the i m pl ement at i on o f thatl aw oror di nance , w hethers t atut oryor ot herw i s e and w hether adopt ed oreff ect i ve pr i ort o oraft ert he eff ect i ve dat e of thi s act , ” i d. § 2 4 0 6 (a ). T h u s, R F P A a p p lies to t he Publ i c School C ode, 24 Pa. St at
. A nn. §§ 1- 101 t o 27- 2702. III

. W e a d d re ss P a re n ts’ federal con sti tu tio n a l cla im . P a re n tsT he Fr ee Exer ci s e C l aus e appl i es t o s t at es and l ocal 19 g o v e rn m e n ts th ro u g h th e F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t. C antw el lv. C onnect i cut , 3 1 0 U

. S

. 2 9 6 , 3 0 3 (19 4 0 ). 29 cont end A ct169 i m pos es a s ubs t ant i al bur den on the fr ee e x e rc ise o f

re lig io n a s p r o tec ted b yth e F irst a n d F o u rte e n th A m endment s . T he C om m onw eal t h as s ert s A ct169 i s a neutr al 19 l aw of gene r al appl i cabi l i t yt hati s r at i onal l yr el at ed t o the l egi t i m at e governm ent al i nt er es t i n ens ur i ng a mi ni m al l evel of educat ion fo ral l chi l dr en. A ppl y i ng r at i onal bas i s r evi ew , the D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded that“A ct169 pas s es cons t i tut i onal m u s te r a s a n e u tr a l la w o f g e n e ra l a p p lic a b ility a n d e f f e c t.” C om bs , 4 6 8 F

. S u p p . 2 d at 7 7 7

. A cc o rdin g ly , the D istri ct C o u rt deni ed Par ent s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entas to the fac i al chal leng e to A ct169 as a vi ol at i on of the Fi r s tA m endmentof t he U nit ed S t at es C on st i tuti on and grant ed t he schoo l dis t ri ct s’ m o ti on fors um m aryj udgm entas t o Par ent s ’ as - appl i ed chall eng es. A

. I n E m pl oym ent

D i vis ion , D epar tm ent of H um an R e so u rc e s o

f O re g o n v . Sm ith , 494 U

. S. 872, 890 ( 1990 ), the Supr eme Court hel d “a l aw t hat i s neutr al and o f g ener al appl i cabi l i t yneed notbe j us t i fi ed by a compel l i ng governm ent al i nt er es teven i f the l aw has the i nci dent al eff ectof bur deni ng a par t i cul arr el i gi ous pr act i ce. ” C h u rc h o f th e L u ku m i B a b a lu A ye, I nc. v. Hi al eah , 5 0 8 U .S . 5 2 0 , 5 3 1 (1 9 9 3 ); see al so Sm ith , 494 U

. S. at879 ( “[T] he r i ghtt o fr ee e xer ci s e does not r el i eve a n30 i ndi vi dual of the obl i gat i on t o compl yw i t h a v ali d and neutr al l aw o f g en er al appl i cabi l i t yon the gr ound t hatthe l aw pr os cr i bes ( orpr es cr i bes ) conductth a thi s r el i gi on pr es cr i bes ( or proscr i bes). ”). T he D i stri ctC ou rtcon cl ud ed that“A ct16 9 is a n e u t r a l l a w o f ge ne r a l a p p l i c a b i l i t yt o a l l P e n n s y l v a n i a h o me s chool er s and thei rhom e educ at i on pr ogr ams, w i t h no r efe r ence ors peci al i m pact o n reli g iou s pr act i ces . . . . ” C om bs , 46 8 F. Supp. 2d at 7 7 2

. A s a r es ul t , the D i s t r i ctC our tappl i ed the ra tio n a l b a sis tes t to P a re n ts’ c h a ll e n g e o f A c t 1 6 9 a n d u p h e ld th e p ro v is io n . I

d. a t 7 7 7

. I n B la c kh a w k

v . P e n n sy lva n ia , 3 8 1 F

. 3 d 2 0 2 (3d C ir

. 2004) , w e appl i ed the s t andar ds fora n eu tr al l aw of gene r al appl i cabi l i t y ar t i cul at ed by t he C o u rt in Hi al eah

. Fi r s t , a l aw m u st b e b o th f

a c iallya n d a c tu a llyn e u tra l. “ A law is ‘n e u tra l’ if i t does not t ar get r el i gi ous l y m ot i vat ed conduct ei t her on i t s fac e oras appl i ed i n pr act i ce. ” Bla c kh a wk , 3 8 1 F .3 d a t 2 0 9 ; s ee als o Hi al eah , 508 U

. S. at534 ( “O ffi ci al act i on t hatt ar get s r el i gi ous co n d u ct fo r disti n cti v e treatm en t can n o t be s h iel d ed b ym ere compl i ance w i t h t he r equi r ementof faci al neutr al i t y . T he Fr ee Ex e r c i s e Cl a u s e p r o t e c t s a g a i n s tg o v e r n me n t a l h o s t i l i t yw hi ch i s m as ked, as w el l as over t
. ”)

. Second, the governm entcannot advanc e i t s i nt er es t s s ol el ybyt ar get i ng reli gi ous l ym ot i vat ed conduct

. I ns t ead, t he r egul at i on m us tbe gene r al l yappl ic abl e. A l aw fai l s t he gene r al appl i cabi l i t yr equi rem ent i f i tbur dens a ca t egoryof r el i gi ous l ym oti vat ed conductbutexempt s ordoes notr eac h a s ubs t ant i al cat ego r yof conduc tthati s not31 r el i gi ous l ym o t i vat ed and thatunderm i nes t he purpos es of the l aw t o at l eas tt he s ame degr ee a s t he cove r ed conduc tthati s r el i gi ous l ym ot i vat ed. Bla c kh a wk , 381 F. 3d at209; s ee al s o Hi al eah , 508 U

. S. at543 ( “ T h e p rin c ip le th a t g o v e rn m e n t, i n p u rsu it o f leg iti m a te i nt er es t s , cannoti n a s el ect i ve manneri m pos e bur dens onl yon conductm ot i vat ed byr el i gi ous bel i ef i s es s ent i al t o t he prot ect i on of the ri gh t s gua ra n tee d b ythe F ree Ex erci se C la u s e .” ). A ct 16 9 is a n eu tr a l la w o f g en era l app li ca b il ity . It nei t hert ar get s r el i gi o u s p r a c t i c e n o rs e l ect i vel yi m pos es bur dens o n r e l i g i o u s l ymo t i v a t e d c o n d u c t
. I n s t e a d , i t i mp o s e s t h e s a me r equi r ement s on par ent s w ho hom e- s chool fors ecul arr eas ons as on par ent s w ho do s o forr el i gi ous r eas ons . Fur t herm or e, n o th in g in th e re c o rd su g g e sts C o m m o n w e a lth sc h o o l o f f icia ls di s cr i m i nat e aga i nst r el i gi ous l ym ot i vat ed home educat i on p r o g r a ms ( e . g . , d e n y i n g a p p r o v a l o f h o me e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a ms b e c a u s e th e yin c lu d e f

a ith -b a s e d c u rr ic u lu m m a te ri a ls ). Par ent s cont end A ct169 is n o ta l aw of gene r al appl i cabi l i t yand i s t ant amount t o a l i cens i ng s cheme forhom es chool i ng. T heyci t e Bla c kh a wk , 381 F. 3d at209- 10, forthe propo si t i on “t hat a s t atute w i t h a w ai ver m echan i sm c re a tes a reg im e o f in d ividu ali ze d , d iscreti o n aryex em p ti o n s tha t tri g g ers s t r i cts crut i ny . ” Par ent s R epl y B r . at 8- 9. Par ent s ’ depi ct i on of A ct 169 i s m i s t aken and t hei r r el i ance o n Bla c kh a wk is m is p la c e d

.32 A s n o ted, th ere are fo u r w ays to f u lfi ll the c o m p u lsory educa t i on r equi r ement
. N one of t he opt i ons i s an exempt i on f ro m th e c o m p u lso rye d u c a tio n law . A ll fo u r re q u ire th a t a c h ild be edu c a t e d i n t h e r e q u i r e d s u b j e c t s f o rth e r e q u i r e d p e r i od. Fur t herm or e, al l par ent s w ho choos e the ho m e educ at i on p rog ram alt ern ati v e, w h ethe r fo r reli gi ous orsec u lar reaso n s, are r equi r e d t o f

u l f i l l t h e Act 1 6 9 r e q u i r e me n t s . Pa r e n t s c i t e no s t atut or yw ai v er m ec hani s m t hatgi ves t he s chool di s t r i ct s t he au tho ri tyto w aive o r ex em p t so m e pa ren ts fro m the d iscl o su re and revi ew requi rem ents
. I n Bla c kh a wk , t he Penns y l vani a W i l dl i fe Code cont ai ned s peci fi c s t atut or yexempt i ons author i zi ng the di r ect orof the G am e C o m m i s s i on t o w ai ve a pe r m i tfee “w her e har ds hi p or extr aor di naryci r cumst ance w arr ant s . ” I d. at205. Fur t her , the cour ts t at ed: “[w ] e ar e not pre s ent ed her e w i t h a neutr al and gener al l yappl i cabl e [pr ovi s i on] thati s uni form l yi m pos ed w ith o u t al low ing ind ividu ali ze d ex em p ti o n s. U nder Sm ith , s uch a schem e . . . w oul d nott r i ggers t r i cts crut i ny , and a pe r s on s eeki ng t o be exc us ed [f r om the pr ovi s i on’ s r equi r ement s ] on r el i gi ous gr ounds w oul d be unl i kel yt o pr evai l

. ” I d. at212. A ct 169 i s a neutr al l aw of gene r al appl i cabi l i t yand does notal l ow in d iv id u a liz e d e x e m p tio n s . Bla c kh a wk is d is tin g u is h a b le

. S i n c e Ac t1 6 9 i s a n e u t r a l l a w o f g e n e r a l a p p l i c a b i l i t y , we w i l l appl yr at i onal bas i s r evi ew unl es s an exc ept i on t o t he Sm ith r ul e a p p l i e s . “ [ R] a t i o n a l b a s i s r e v i e w r e q u i r e s me r e l yth a tthe a c t i o n b e r a t i o n a l l yr e l a t e d t o a l e g i t i ma t e g o v e r nm ent obj ect i ve. ” T

e n a fly E ru v A ss ’n , In c . v. T e n a fly , 309 F. 3d 144,33 1 6 5 n .2 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). “ U n d e r ra tio n a l b a sis re v iew , ‘a s tatu te i s pr es um ed co n sti tut i onal , and the bur den i s on t he one att ac k ing the leg isl ati v e a rran g em e n t to n eg ati v e e v ery conc e i v a b l e b a s i s whi c h mi g h t s u p p o r t i t , whe t h e r o r n o tt hat bas i s has a founda t i on i n the r ecor d. ’ ” L ig h th o u se In st. , 510 F. 3d at277 ( quot i ng Hel l erv. D oe , 5 0 9 U

. S

. 3 1 2 , 3 2 1 (19 9 3 )). T he C om m onw eal t h has a l egi t i m at e i nt er es ti n ens ur i ng chi l dr en t aught u nderhom e educ at i on pr ogr ams ar e ac hi evi ng m i ni m u m ed u ca ti o n al st an d ard s an d are demonstr at i ng s us t ai ned p ro g re s s in th e ir e d u c a tio n a l p ro g ra m . See, e. g. , B d. of E duc. v. A l l en , 392 U

. S. 236, 245- 47 & n. 7 ( 1968) ( “[A ] s ubs t ant i al body of ca s e l aw has confi r m ed the pow erof the St at es t o i ns i s tthat a t t e n d a n c e a tp r i v a t e s c h o o l s , i f i t i s t o s a t i s f y s t a t e c o m p u l s o r yat t endanc e law s, be ati ns t i tut i ons w hi ch pr ovi de mi ni m um hour s of i ns t ruct i on, empl oy t eac her s of s peci fi ed tr ai ni ng, and cov er pr escr i bed subject s o f i nst ruct i on . . . . [I] f t he S t at e m ust s at i s fyi t s i nt er es ti n s ecul areduca t i on t hr ough the i ns trum entof pr i vat e s chool s , i thas a pr oper int er es ti n t he manneri n w hi ch th o se sc h o o ls pe rfo rm their sec u lar ed u ca ti o n al fu n cti o n . ”); P i erce v. So c’y of Sis t ers of the Holy N am es o f Jesus an d Mary , 268 U

. S. 510, 534 ( 1925) (ac k now l edgi ng t he “pow erof the St at e r eas onabl yt o r egul at e al l s chool s , t o i ns pect , s upervi s e and exami ne them, t hei rt eac her s and pupi l s ”)

. I n B row n v . B o ard of E ducat i on , t he Supr eme C ou rt not ed the i m por t ance of educa t i on and the meani ngful r ol e the s t at e pl ay s i n pr epar i ng a chi l d forci t i zens hi p and adul tl i fe: T oday , educa t i on i s perhaps the mosti m p o r t ant34 fun ct i on of st at e and l ocal gov ernm ents
. C om pul s or ys chool at t endanc e l aw s and the gr eat expendi tur es for educa t i on bot h demonstr at e our r ecogni t i on of the i m por t ance of educ at i on t o our democ rat i c s oci ety . I ti s r equi r ed i n t he p e rf o rm a n c e o f o u r m o st b a sic p u b lic res po nsi bil i t i es, even service i n the ar m ed fo rces . I ti s the very fo u n dat i on of good ci t i zens hi p. T odayi ti s a pr i nci pal i n stru m enti n aw akeni ng t he chi l d t o cul tural val ues , i n pr epar i ng hi m for late r p r o f

e s sio n a l train in g , an d in h e lp in g h im to adjustno rm al l yt o h i s env i ronm ent. In t hese da y s, i ti s doubt ful t hatany chi l d m ayr eas onabl ybe expec t ed t o s ucce ed i n li fe i f he i s deni ed the oppor tuni t yof an e ducat i on. 3 4 7 U .S . 4 8 3 , 4 9 3 (1 9 5 4 ). A c t 1 6 9 ' s d isc lo su re re q u ire m e n ts and corr espon ding schoo l dis t ri ct revi ew rat i on al l yfurther these l eg i t i ma t e s t a t e i n t er es t s . A ccor di ngl y , A ct169 s ur vi ves r at i onal b a s i s r e v i e w. B

. P arent s ass erttheircl ai m fal l s w i t hin a “hybri d-r i gh t s” exce pt i on t he Supr eme C our tdi s cus s ed i n Sm ith : T he onl ydeci s i ons i n w hi ch w e have hel d t hatt he F irst A m e n d m e n t b a rs a p p lica tio n o f a n e u tra l, gener al l yappl i cabl e l aw t o r el i gi ous l ym ot i vat ed act i on hav e i nv olved no tt he F ree Ex erci se C l ause35 al one, butt he Fr ee E xer ci s e C l aus e i n conj unct i on w i t h o t h e rc o n s t i tu t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n s , s u c h as f re e d o m o f

s p e e c h a n d o f

th e p re s s , se e C a n tw e ll v. C onnect i cut , [ 3 1 0 U. S. , a t 3 04- 307] ( i nval i dat i ng a l i cens i ng s y s t em forr el i gi ous and char i t abl e s ol i ci t at i ons under w hi ch t he a d m in istra to r h a d d is c re tio n to d e n ya lice n se to a n yc a u se h e d e e m e d n o n re lig io u s); Mur dock v

. P e n n s y lva n ia , [ 3 1 9 U. S. 1 0 5 ( 1943) ] ( i nval i dat i ng a fl att ax on s ol i cit at i on as appl i ed t o t he d iss e m in a tio n o f

re lig io u s id e a s); Fol l et tv. McC or m i ck , [321 U

. S. 573 ( 1944) ] ( s ame) , orthe r i ghtof par ent s , ac k now l edged i n P i er ce v . So ci et y of Sist ers , [268 U

. S. 510 ( 1925) ] , t o di r ect th e e d u c a tio n o f t h e i r c h ild re n , s ee W is cons i n v. Y oder , [406 U

. S. 205 ( 1972) ] ( i nval i dat i ng c o m p u lso ry sc h o o l-a tten d a n c e law s a s a p p lied to A m i s h par ent s w ho r efus ed on r el i gi ous gr ounds to se n d their ch il d ren to sc h o o l)

. Sm ith , 4 9 4 U .S . at 8 8 1 . P a re n ts c o n te n d A c t 1 6 9 su b sta n tially b u rd e n s b o th th e ir f re e e x e rc ise o f

re lig io n a n d th e ir f u n d a m e n tal rig h t as p a re n ts, u n d e r th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t, t o di r ectt he educ at ion an d upbr i ngi ng of thei rchi l dr en. A ccor di ngl y , t heyi nvoke the hybr i d- r i ght s exce pt i on of Sm ith , s eeki ng s t r i cts crut i ny revi ew . A l t ernat i vel y , Par ent s cont end th a t, no tw ith stan d ing o u r hyb ri d -ri g h ts de term in a tio n , W isc o n sin v. Y oderrem ai ns go o d law and t he sam e con st i tuti on al t est36 appl i es her e. 1

. A l t hough w e have di s cus sed t he Sm ith h yb rid -rig h ts t heoryi n pr i or opi ni ons , i t s m eani ng and appl i cat i on r emai ns an o p e n q u e s tio n in o u r c ir c u it. S ee Bl a c kh a wk , 381 F. 3d at207 ( not i ng, w hi l e di s cus s i ng Sm ith , “th e C o u rt d id n o t o v e rru le pr i or d ec isi o n s i n w hi ch ‘ hybr i d cl ai m s ’

. . . had pr evai l ed against‘neut ral , gen eral l yapp l i cable l aw s, ’” but decidi ng case o n o th e r g ro u n d s); T

e n a fly , 309 F. 3d at165 n. 26 ( not i ng “[s ] t r i ct s crut i nym ay . . . appl y w hen a neutr al , gener al l yappl i cabl e l aw in c id e n tally b u rd e n s” h yb rid rig h ts); Salvat i on A r my v. D ep’ tof C m t y. A f f air s , 919 F. 2d 183, 200 ( 3d C i r . 19 9 0) ( fi ndi ng
“ [ b ]e c a u se th e p re se n t co n tro v e rsy do e s n o t co n c e rn a n ysta te a c t i o n d i r e c t l y a d d r e s s e d t o r e l i g i o n , [ T h e S a l v a t i o n A r m y] cannotr ece i ve pr ot ect ion fr om the as s oci at i onal r i ghtder i ved from t he free exe rci se clause”)

. W e hav e nev er deci ded a case bas ed on a hybr i d- r i ght s cl ai m , l etal on e the type of a hybr i dri gh t s cl ai m i nv ok ed h ere – on e based on t h e F ree Ex erci se C l aus e and the compani on r i ghtt o di r ecta chi l d’ s upbr i ngi ng. Sm ith ’ s hybr i d- r i ght s t heoryhas di vi ded ours i s t er ci rcui t s. S om e charact eri ze t he theoryas d icta a nd other s use di ffe r ents t andar ds t o deci de w h ethera pl ai nt i ff ha s as s ert ed a cogni zabl e hybr i d- r i ght s cl ai m . T he U ni t ed S t at es C our t s of A ppea l s fort he Second a nd Si xth C i r cui t s have c oncl uded the h ybr i d- r i ght s l anguage i n Sm ith is d ic ta
. S e e Le e b a er tv. H ar r i ngt on , 332 F. 3d 134, 143 ( 2d C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng Knightv.J us t i ce Sout er , concurr i ng i n Hi al eah , al s o cr i t i ci zed the 20 h yb r i d

- r i g h t s t h e o r y: [T]he di s t i nct i on Sm ith dr aw s s t r i kes m e as u lti m a telyu n ten a b le. If a h yb rid c laim is s im p ly o n e in w h ich a n o th e r c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t is im p lica ted , the n th e h yb rid e x c e p tio n w o u ld pr obabl y be so vast as t o s w al l ow t he Sm ith rul e, and, i ndeed, t he hybr i d exce pt i on w oul d covert he s i tu a t i o n e x e m p l i f

i e d b y Sm ith , s i nce f

r ee s peec h a n d a ss o c iatio n al rig h ts a re c e rta in lyim p lica ted in th e p e y o te r itu a l. B u t if a h yb rid c laim is o n e in w hi ch a l i t i gantw oul d actual l yob tai n an e x e m p tio n f

ro m a f o rm a llyn e u tr a l, ge n e ra lly appl i cabl e l aw underanothercons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i on, t hen ther e w oul d have be en no r eas on 37 C o n n e c ticu t D e

p ’t o f P u b . H e a lth , 2 7 5 F

. 3 d 1 5 6 , 1 6 7 (2d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 )); W

at cht ow erB i bl e & Trac tSoc’ y of N ew Y ork, I nc. v. Str at t on , 2 4 0 F .3 d 5 5 3 , 5 6 1 -6 2 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), r ev’ d on other gr ounds , 5 3 6 U .S . 1 5 0 (2 0 0 2 ); K iss in g e r v . B d . o f T rs . o f O h io Stat e U ni v. , C ol l

. of

V et er i nar y Med. , 5 F

. 3 d 1 7 7 , 1 8 0 (6th C ir

. 1993)

. Fur t herm or e, the U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s forthe S ix th C irc u it v iew s th e h yb rid -rig h ts ex c e p tio n a s “ c o m p lete ly i l l ogi cal , ” K is s i nger , 5 F

. 3 d at 18 0 , an d the U n it ed S tat es C o u rt of A ppeal s fort he Second Ci r cui t“ca n thi nk of no good r eas on forthe s t andar d of r evi ew t o varys i m pl yw i t h the n u m b erof cons t i tut i onal r i ght s t hatt he pl ai nt i ff a s s ert s have be en vi ol at ed, ” L eebaert , 332 F. 3d at144. A ccor di ngl y , w hen fa ced 20f o r th e C o u rt in w h a t Sm ith cal l s t he hybr i d cas es to h a v e m e n tio n e d th e F re e E x e rc ise C lau se a t all. Hi al eah , 5 0 8 U

. S

. at 56 7 (S o u ter, J. , co n cu rri n g ). 38 w ith a n e u tra l law o f

g e n e ra l ap p lica b ili ty , b o th a p p e llate c o u rts d e c lin e to a llo w th e a p p lica tio n o f stric t sc ru tin yto h yb rid -rig h ts c l a i m s a n d i n s t e a d a p p l y Sm ith ’s ra tio n a l b a s is s ta n d a rd

. See L eeba ert , 332 F. 3d at144 (“‘[A ]t least u n ti l the S u p rem e C o u rt h o lds tha t l eg al st an d ard s u n d er the F ree E x erc ise C laus e v ary dependi ng on w hether other cons t i tut i onal r i ght s ar e i m pl i cat ed, w e w ill n o t u se a stric ter leg a l sta n d a rd ’ to e v a lu a te h yb rid cl ai m s . ” ( quot i ng K is s i nger , 5 F .3 d a t 1 8 0 ))

. T h e U n ited S tate s C o u rts o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e F irst C irc u it a n d D istric t o f

C o lu m b ia h a v e a c k n o w led g e d th a t h yb rid -rig h ts cl ai m s m ay w arr ant hei ght ened s crut i ny , but have s ugges t ed that a p lain tiff

m u st m e e t a s trin g e n t sta n d a rd : th e f re e e x e rc ise c laim m ust be conj oi ned w i t h an i ndepende nt l yvi abl e compani on ri g h t. See Hender

so n v. K ennedy , 2 5 3 F

. 3 d 1 2 , 1 9 (D

. C

. C ir

. 2001) ( r ej ect i ng t he “hybr i d cl ai m ” ar gum entthat“the co m b ination o f tw o u n te n ab le claim s eq u als a ten ab le on e” ); E

. E

. O. C. v . Ca th o l i c Un i v . o f A m. , 8 3 F

. 3 d 4 5 5 , 4 6 7 (D

. C

. C ir

. 1996) ( fi ndi ng t hat the EE O C ’ s vi ol at i on of the Est abl i s hm ent C laus e tri g g ere d the h yb ri d -rig h ts ex ce p ti o n ); G ar y S. v. Ma n c h e ste r Sc h . D ist. , 374 F. 3d 15, 18- 19 ( 1s tC i r . 2004) ( ci t i ng G a ry S . v. Ma n c h e ste r S c h . D ist. , 241 F. Supp. 2 d 1 1 1 , 121 ( D

. N

. H

. 2003) ) ( aff

i r m i ng, forth e sam e r eas ons , the di s t r i ct cour t ’ s r ej ect i on of a hybr i d- r i ght s cl ai m beca us e the fr eeI n P arker v. H ur l ey , 514 F. 3d 87 ( 1s tC i r . 2008) , the U ni t ed 21 St at es C our tof A ppeal s forthe F i r s tC i r cui tr ej ect ed pl ai nt i ff p a re n ts’ cla im s tha t th e y m u st be g iv e n p rio r no tice b ya p u b lic s chool and an oppor tuni t y t o exempt t hei ry oung chi l dr en fr om rea d ing b o o k s the p are n ts find reli g iou slyrep u g n an t. In d isc u ss in g h yb rid -rig h ts c laim s, th e c o u rt sta ted th a t th e stre n g th of the compani on cons t i tut i onal cl ai m r equi r ed t o establ i s h a hybri d si tuati on rem ai ns un set t l ed in the F i rs t C irc uitbecau se t he Br o wn o p in io n d id n o t “ e x p lic itly” d e c id e th e is s u e . I d. at 9 8 n .9 . It also n o ted th a t “th e p a re n tal rig h ts c la im a ss e rte d in th a t ca se w a s f

o u n d to b e so w e a k th a t itw a s n o t a c o lo ra b le cl ai m , m uch l es s an i ndepende nt l yvi abl e one. ” Id

. T he P arker cour tchos e nott o “ent er [] t he fr ay o v er the m eani ng and appl i cat i on of Sm ith ’ s ‘ hybr i d s i tuat i ons ’ l anguage , ” and i ns t ead “appr oach[ ed] t he par ent s ’ cl ai m s as the C our tdi d i n Y oder

. In t hat cas e, t he C ou rtdid not anal y ze se p a ra t el ythe d ue p rocess and fr ee e xer ci s e i nt er est s of the par ent
- pl ai nt i ffs , butr ather c o n s i d e r e d t h e t wo c l a i ms i n t e r d e p e n d e n t l y , g i v e n th a tth o s e two s et s of i nt er es t s i nform one other

. ” Id

. at98. T h e c o u rt ul t i m at el yfound that pl ai nt i ffs di d notdes cr i be “acons t i tut i onal bur den on thei rr i ght s ” and a ffi r m ed the di s t r i ctc o u rt ’ s di s m i s s al 39 e x e rc ise c laim w a s n o t co n jo in e d w ith a n in d e p e n d e n tlyv iab le c o m p a n io n c laim ); B r ow n v. H ot , Sexy & Saf

erP r ods

. , I

nc. , 68 F

. 3d 52 5, 53 9 ( 1st C i r. 19 95 ) (r ej ect i ng a hybri d-r i gh t s c laim beca us e “[ pl ai nt i ff’ s ] fr ee e xer cise chal l enge i s . . . not conj oi ned w i t h an i ndepende nt l ypr ot ect ed const i tut i onal p rotec ti o n ”). 21f o r f a ilu re to s ta te a c la im

. I d. a t 9 9

. A l t hough t h e U n it ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s fort he 22 S e v e n th C irc u it h a s n o t d e f in iti v e lya rticu late d its a p p ro a c h , it has appr ovi ngl yquot ed t he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s for th e N in th C ir c u it. See Ci vi lLi ber t i es f orU r ban B eli ev ers v. C hi cago , 3 4 2 F. 3 d 7 5 2 , 7 6 5 ( 7 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( quot i ng Mi l l erv. R eed , 1 7 6 F .3 d 1 2 0 2 , 1 2 0 7

- 0 8 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 )); buts ee i d. 40 T h is strin g e n t a p p ro a c h re q u irin g a n in d e p e n d e n tlyv a lid compani on cl ai m has r ece i ved cr i t i ci s m , m os tnot abl ythats uch a requi rem ent w ou l d m ake the free ex erci se clai m superfl uo us. S e e Hi a l e ah , 5 0 8 U

. S. at567 ( Sout er , J

. , concurr i ng) ( “[I ] f a hybr i d cl ai m i s one i n w hi ch a l i t i gant w oul d actual l y obt ai n an exempt i on fr om a form all yneutr al , gener al l yappl i cabl e l aw underanothercons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i on, then ther e w oul d have b e e n n o re a so n f

o r th e C o u rt in w h a t Sm ith cal l s t he hybr i d cas es to h a v e m e n tio n e d th e F re e E x e r c is e C lau se a t all.”) ; A xs onF l ynn v. Johns on , 356 F. 3d 1277, 1296- 97 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) (“ [ I]t m a k e s n o se n se to a d o p t a s trict s tan d a rd th a t es se n tially r equi r es a su c c essf

u l c o m p a n io n c laim b e c a u se su c h a tes t w o u ld m ak e the fre e e x erc ise claim u n n ec essa ry . If the p lai n ti ff ’s a d d iti o n a l co n stitu tio n a l cla im is s u c c e ss f u l, he o r sh e w o u ld typ ica llyn o t n e e d th e f

re e e x e rc ise c laim a n d th e h yb rid -rig h ts e x c e p tio n w o u ld a d d n o th in g to th e c a s e .” ). T he U n i t e d St a t e s Cou r t s o f App e a l s f

o rt h e Ni n t h and T enth C i r cui t s r ecogni ze hybr i d ri ght s and r equi r e a pl ai nt i ff 22( ci t i ng Br o wn , 68 F. 3d at539 and K is s i nger , 5 F

. 3 d at 18 0 ). T he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeals f o r t he Ei ghth C i r cui thas r ecogni zed the exi s t ence of hybr i d r i ght s buthas notdefi ned the c o n to u rs o f

th e a n a lysis

. See Corner s t one Bi bl e C hur ch v. H as t i ngs , 948 F. 2d 464, 474 ( 8th C i r . 1991) ( r ever s i ng and re m a n d in g to d is tr ic t c o u rt to c o n s id e r h yb ri d -r ig h ts c la im ).

41 t o r ai s e a “ col or abl e cl aim t hata compani on r i ghthas been vi ol at ed. ” Sa n J

o se C h r is tia n C o ll. v . Mo rg a n Hill , 360 F. 3d 1 0 2 4 , 1 0 3 2 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); see al so A xso n -F lynn , 356 F. 3d at 1 2 9 7

. T h ey d e f

in e c o lorab le as “ a f air pro b ab il ityo r a l i k e l i h o o d , b u t n o t a c e r t i tu d e , o f s u c c e s s o n t h e me r i t s . ” San J o se C h ris tia n C o ll. , 3 6 0 F .3 d a t 1 0 3 2 ; A xs on- F l ynn , 356 F. 3d at1297. T h eych ara cterize this fa ct-drive n , cas e- by -ca se in q u iry as “a mi ddl e gro u n d betw een tw o t he extr emes of pa i nt i ng hybr i d- r i ght s cl ai m s t oo gene rousl yand cons t rui ng them t oo narr ow l y . ” A xs on- F l

ynn , 356 F. 3d at 1295. A pl ai nt i ff c annot “si m pl yi nvoke the par ent al r i ght s doctr i ne, combi ne i tw i t h a c laim e d f re e -e x e rc ise rig h t, an d th e re b yf o rc e th e g o v e rn m e n t to d e m o n s tr a te th e p re s e n c e o f a c o m p e llin g s ta te in te re s t.” Sw a n so n v. G u thrie Ind ep . Sch

. D ist

. N o . I-L , 135 F. 3d 694, 700 ( 10t h C i r . 1998)

. N ori s one re q u ir ed t o es t abl i s h t hatthe chal leng ed law ind ependent l yvi ol at es a compani on cons t i tut i onal r i ghtal one, w i t houtanyr ecogni t i on of the Fr ee E x e rc is e C la u s e . B yr equi r i ng a “col or abl e cl ai m ” t hata compani on r i ghtA s not ed, J us t i ce Sout er , concurr i ng i n Hi al eah , cr i t i ci zed 23 th e h yb ri d -r ig h ts th e o ry. Hi al eah , 5 0 8 U

. S

. at 56 6 -67 (S o u ter, J

. , concurr i ng)

. Fur t herm or e, i n B oer ne v. P

. F

. F l or es , 52 1 U. S. 507 ( 1997 ), the C our tnot ed, w i t houtfur t herdi s cus s i on or e x p lan a tio n , tha t Y

oder“i m pl i cat ed” the r i ghtt o fr ee exer ci s e of reli g ion an d the ri g h t o f pa ren ts to con tr o l th e ir c h il d ren ’s e d u c a tio n . B oer ne , 5 2 1 U .S . a t 5 1 4

. 42 has been vi ol at ed, t he U ni t ed St at es C our t s of A ppeal s fort he N in th a n d T e n th C irc u its e x a m in e “ th e c laim e d in f rin g e m e n ts on t he part y ’ s cl ai m ed r i ght s t o det erm ine w hetherei t hert he c la im e d ri g h ts o r th e c la im e d in f ri n g e m e n ts a re g e n u in e .” Sw ans on , 135 F. 3d at699. T hus , i n or dert o tr i ggerhei ght ened s crut i ny , a hybr i d- r i ght s pl ai nt i ff m us t s how a fai r pr obabi l i t yor lik e lih o o d , b u t n o t a c e rtitud e , o f su c c e ss o n th e m e rits o f h is c o m p a n io n c o n s titu tio n a l c la im

. I n Sm ith , t he C our t as s ert ed t hat t he ca s e bef or e i t“[di d] n o t p re se n t
. . . a h yb rid situ a tio n , b u t a f re e e x e rc ise c laim u n c o n n e c ted w ith a n yc o m m u n ic a tiv e a c tiv ity o r p a re n ta l r ig h t.” 49 4 U

. S

. at88 2. T he criter i on app l i cable t o a free exe rci se cl ai m combi ned w i t h a compani on cons t i tut i onal r i ghtw as l eft u n d e f in e d

. See, e. g. , K is s i nger , 5 F. 3d at180 (not i ng t hatt he Sm i th C our t“di d notexpl ai n how the s t andar ds underthe Fr ee E xer ci s e C l aus e w oul d change dependi ng on w hetherot her cons t i tut i onal r i ght s ar e i m pl i cat ed”)

. Si nce Sm ith , a maj or i t yof th e C o u r t h a s n o t co n f irm e d th e v iab ili tyo f

th e h yb rid -rig h ts t h e o r y . Un t i l t h e S u p r e me Co u r tp r o v i d e s d i r e c t i o n , we

2343 b e lie v e th e h yb ri d -r ig h ts th e o ry to b e d ic ta
. 2

. E ven i f w e w er e t o ap p ly t he appr oache s us ed byour sis ter c irc u its – “ c o lo ra b le ” c laim a p p ro a c h a n d in d e p e n d e n tly v iab le c laim a p p r o a c h – w e w o u ld f in d P a re n ts’ a rg u m e n ts unconvi nci ng. U nder ei t her appr oach, w e m us t de t erm i ne w hetherPar ent s can e s t abl i s h a hybr i d- r i ght s cl ai m byas s ert i ng combi ned vi ol at i ons of the Fr ee Exer ci s e C l aus e and the compa n i o n r i g h to f

a p a r e n tu n d e rth e Fo u r t e e n t h Am e n d m ent t o d ir ecta chi l d’ s educa t i on. Par ent s have notpr es ent ed an i n d e p e n d e n t o r c o l o r a b l e c o m p a n i o n c l a i m a n d , a c c o r d i n g l y, c a n n o te s t a b l i s h a v a l i d h yb r i d

- r i g h t s c l a i m.

“ T h e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se g u a ra n tee s m o r e th a n f a ir pr oces s . . . . T h e C l aus e al s o pr ovi des hei ght ened pr ot ect i on a g a in st g o v e rn m e n ti nter f e re n c e w ith c e rta in f

u n d a m e n tal rig h ts and l i ber t yi nt er es t s . ” W ashingt on v. G l ucksbe rg , 521 U

. S. 702, 719- 20 ( 1997)

. I n G l ucksbe rg , t he Supr em e C o u rtart i cul at ed th e f u n d a m e n ta l rig h ts p ro te c te d b y th e D u e P ro c e s s C la u s e . I d. at 719

- 2 0

. I n c l u d e d i n t h e l i s t was t h e r i g h t “ t o d i r e c t t he educa t i on and upbr i ngi ng of one’ s chi l dr en. ” I d. at720 ( ci t i ng Meye rv. N

ebr as ka , 262 U

. S. 390 ( 1923) , and P i er ce v . Soc’ y of Sis t ers of

the Holy N

a m e s o f Jesus an d Mary , 268 U

. S. 510 (1 9 2 5 )); s e e a lso T

ro x e l v. G ra n v ill e , 530 U

. S. 57, 66 ( 2000) (p lu ra li ty o p in io n ) ( “ [ T ] h e D u e P r o c e s s C la u s e o f th e F o u rte e n th A m endmen t p rot ect s t he funda m ent al r i ghtof par ent s t o m ake d e c isio n s c o n c e rn in g th e c a re , cu sto d y , an d c o n tro l o f th e ir44 c h ild re n .” ). P a re n ts re ly o n th re e S u p re m e C o u rt c a se s to g e n e ra lly iden ti fya p are n t’ s co n sti tuti o n al ri g h t t o d ir ec t a ch il d ’s e d u c a tio n . See Meye rv. N ebr as ka , 262 U

. S. 390, 401- 03 ( 1923) ( hol di ng stat e l aw pr ohi bi t i ng for ei gn l anguage i ns t ruct i on v io late d th e “ p o w e r o f

p a re n ts t o c o n tro l th e e d u c a tio n o f th e ir o w n ” ); P i er ce , 2 6 8 U

. S

. at 53 5 -36 (ho lding stat e c o m p u lso ry e d u c a tio n law re q u irin g stu d e n ts to a tten d so lelyp u b lic s c h o o ls “unr eas onabl yi nt er fer es w i t h the l i ber t yof par ent s . . . t o di r ect the u p b ri n g ing an d ed u ca ti o n o f c h il d ren u n d er the irco n tr o l”); W is cons i n v. Y

oder , 406 U

. S. 205, 214, 234- 36 ( 1972) ( fi ndi ng a c o m p u lso rye d u c a tio n sy ste m , as a p p lied to th e A m ish , to vi ol at e the Fr ee E xer ci s e C l aus e and t he “tr adi t i onal i nt er es tof par ent s w i t h r es pectt o t he r el i gi ous upbr i ngi ng of thei rchi l dr en s o l ong as t hey , i n t he w or ds of P i er ce , ‘pre p ar e ( t hem) for a d d iti o n a l o b lig a tio n s’” ). B u t th e p a rticu lar rig h t a ss e rte d in th is cas e – the r i ghtt o be fr ee f r om all report i ng r equi r ement s and “di s cr et i onary ” s t at e over s i ghto f a chi l d’ s hom e- s chool e d u c a tio n – h a s n e v e r b e e n re c o g n iz e d

. A lth o u g h P a re n ts a ss e rt th e f u n d a m e n tal n a tu re o f

th e ir g e n e r a l r i g h t , i t i s a l i mi t e d o n e . W e h a v e n o t e d “ [ t ] h e S u p r e me C ou rthas nev er been call ed u po n to define t he p reci se boundar i es of a par ent ’ s r i ghtt o contr ol a chi l d’ s upbr i ngi ng and e d u c a tio n . It i s c lea r, h o w e v e r, th a t th e rig h t is n e ith e r a b so lu te n o runqual i fi ed. ” C

. N

. v. R i dgew ood B d. of

E duc. , 4 3 0 F. 3d 159, 182 ( 3d C i r . 2005)

. “The cas e l aw i n t hi s ar ea e s t abl i s hes t hatpar ent s s i m pl ydo nothave a cons t i tut i onal r i ght t o contr olF e d e ra l co u rts a d d re ss in g th e iss u e h a v e h e ld th a t p a re n ts 24 have no r i ght t o exemptt hei rchi l d fr om cert ai n s ubj ect s , r eadi ng a ss ig n m e n ts, c o m m u n ity -se rv ice re q u ire m e n ts or a ss e m b ly p ro g ra m s th e yf

in d o b je c tio n a b le

. See, e. g. , P arker , 514 F. 3d at 1 0 7 (re a d in g a ss ig n m e n t); Le e baert , 3 3 2 F .3 d a t 1 4 4 (h e a lth e d u c a tio n c las s); Her ndon v. C hapel Hi l l

- C ar r bor o C i t y Bd. of E duc. , 89 F. 3d 174 ( 4th C i r . 1996) ( comm uni t y -serv i ce re q u ire m e n t); Im m e d ia to v . R y e N e c k Sc h . D ist. , 73 F. 3d 454, 4 6 1 -62 (2d C ir

. 1 9 9 6 ) (co m m u n ity-s e rv ic e re q u ir e m e n t) ; Br o wn , 6 8 F .3 d a t 5 3 9 (se x u a l ed u c a tio n a ss e m b ly ); see al s o B l au v. Fo rt T h o m a s P u b . Sc h . D ist. , 4 0 1 F

. 3 d 3 8 1 , 3 9 5 -9 6 (6 th C ir

. 2005) ( fi ndi ng t hata par ent“does nothave a fundament al r i ght to e x e m p t h is c h ild f

ro m th e s c h o o l d re s s c o d e ” ).

45 eac h and eve r yas pectof thei rchi l dr en’ s educa t i on and ous tthe s t at e’ s author i t y overt hats ubj ect
. ” Sw ans on , 135 F. 3d at699. 24 Fur t herm or e, [ t]h e C o u rt h a s re p e a ted lystre ss e d th a t w h ile p a re n ts h a v e a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to se n d th e ir chi l dr en t o pr i vat e s chool s and a c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o s el ectpr i v ate sc hool s t hatoffe r s peci al ized instruction , they h ave no c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to p ro v id e th e ir c h ild re n w ith p riv a te s c h o o l e d u c a tio n u n f e ttere d b yre a so n a b le governm entr egul at i on.Par ent s w ho hom e- s chool t hei rchi l dr en maybe s ubj ect ed 25 t o s t andar di zed t es t i ng t o ens ur e the chi l dr en ar e rece ivi ng an a d e q u a te e d u c a tio n . See Mu r phy v. A rkans as , 852 F. 2d 1039, 10 44 (8th C i r. 19 88 ) ( up ho l ding st at e st and ardi zed tes t re q u ire m e n t o v e r ho m e -sc h o o lin g p a re n ts’ F irst an d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t o b

je c tio n s ). 46 R unyon v. McC rary , 4 2 7 U

. S

. 1 6 0 , 1 7 8 (19 7 6 ). 25 I n addi t i on t o Y

oder , di s cus s ed i nfr a , Par ent s r el yon Meye rand P i er ce for foundat i onal s uppor t
. R ead t ogether , t he cases evi nce t he pr i nci pl e thatthe s t at e ca nnotpr event par ent s fr om choos i ng a s peci fi c educ at i onal p ro g ra m – w h e th e r i t b e re lig io u s in stru c tio n a t a pr i vat e s chool ori n stru ct i on i n a for ei gn l anguage . T hati s , t he st ate does nothave the p o w er to “ stan d ard ize it s ch il d re n ” o r “f o ster a hom ogenous peopl e” bycompl et el yfore cl os i ng th e o p p o rtu n ityo f

in d iv id u a ls a n d g ro u p s to choos e a di ffe r entpath of educ at i on. Br o wn , 6 8 F .3 d a t 5 3 3 ; s e e al so R unyon , 427 U

. S. at177 (st ressi ng t he “l i m i t ed s cope” of Meyer and P i er ce )

. I n t he pr es entcas e, Par ent s ar e gi ven the fre edom t o choos e a
“ d if f e re n t p a th o f

e d u c a tio n ” – h o m e -sc h o o lin g – su b jec t o n ly t o t he A ct169 r eq u ir ement s . T he s chool di s t r i ct s do nothave a n yr o l e i n s e l e c t i n g t h e p r o g r a m P a r e n t s w i s h t o f o l l o w.47 Pa rent s ar e unabl e t o poi ntt o a s i ngl e i ns t ance i n w hi ch the s chool di s t r i ct s have l i m i t ed ori nt er fer ed w i t h thei rr el i gi ous te a c h in g s a n d /o r m a te ri a ls

. I n herdepos i t i on, Shar i N elso n acknow l edged thather lo c a l sc h o o l d istric t n e v e r qu e stio n e d o r reje c ted h e r a f f id a v its and di d n oti nt e r fe r e w i t h h e rr e l i gi ou s c on t e ntc ho i c e s . M r s. N el s on not ed s he w as never conce r ned t hat t he l ocal school d istri ct w o u ld r ejec t h er ch il d ren ’s p o rt fo li o if it co n tai n ed w o rk pr oductw i t h a r el i gi ous s ubj ectm att er. Si m i l ar l y , M ary al i ce N ew bor n acknow l edge d thatherl ocal s chool di s t r i ctnever ques t i oned t he appr opr i at enes s of herhom e educ at i on pr ogr am o r its c o n ten t. P are n ts ne v er theless c o n tend that the C o m m o n w ea lth ’s “s ubj ect i ve” a nd “di s cr et i onary ” r evi ew over the A ct169 d iscl o su res v iolates th eir ri g h t t o co n tr o l th eir ch il d ren ’s educa t i on. T heyi ns i s tanyr evi ew of the home educat i on pr ogr ams m us tbe pure ly “o bj ect i ve. ” I n otherw or ds , t hey cont end the C om m onw eal t h us urps the r el i gi o u s and par ent al r i ght s of par ent s w hen an offi ci al m akes a l i m i t ed det erm i nat i on o f w h e th e r a c h il d h a s “ su sta in e d p ro g re ss in th e o v e ra ll pr ogr am. ” Par ent s have no tart i cul at ed thei rdefi ni t i on of

“ o b j e c t i v e ” i n t h e i r b r i e f

. W h e n q u e s t i o n e d d u r i ng or al ar gum ent , Par ent s ’ couns el w as unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o pr ovi de a c o n c r e t e e x p l a n a t i o n o re x a mp l e o f a n “ o b j e c t i v e ” r e v i e w. Fur t herm or e, i ti s di ffi cul tt o acc eptPar ent s ’ as s ert i on t hat r evi ew of a c hi l d’ s educa t i onal pr ogr es s can trul y be obj ect i ve. T h e g r a d i n g o f

a n e s s a y, e v e n o n a p a s s / f a i l s c a l e , w i l l a l w a ysI n a di ffe r entcont ext , the Supr eme C our ts t at ed: 26 Si nce P ierce , a s ubs t ant i al bodyof ca s e l aw has confi r m ed the pow er of t he St at es t o i ns i s tt hat att endanc e atpr i vat e s chool s , i f i ti s t o s at i s fy s t a t e c o mpu l s o r y - at t endanc e l aw s , be at i ns t i tu ti ons w hi ch pr ovi de mi ni m um hour s of i ns t ruct i on, empl oy t eac her s of s peci fi ed tr ai ni ng, and cove rpr es cr i bed s ubj ect s of i ns t ruct i on. Indeed , t he S t at e’s i nter esti n assuri ng th a tthese s t andar ds ar e bei ng m ethas been c ons i der ed a s uffi ci ent r eas on for r efus i ng t o acc epti ns t ruct i on at ho m e a s co m p li an ce w ith co m p u lsory e d u c a tio n sta tu tes . T h e se c a s e s w e re a se n sib le cor ol l aryof P i erce v. So ci et y of Sist ers : i f the St at e musts at i s fyi t s i nt er es t i n s ecul areduca t i on

48 b e im b u e d w ith s o m e e le m e n t o f s u b je c tiv ity. A s n o ted , t h e re is n o re c o g n ize d rig h t f o r p a re n ts to educa t e thei rchi l dr en “unfet t er ed byr eas onabl e governm ent r egul at i on. ” R unyon , 427 U

. S. at178. T he C our ti n P i er ce e x p re ss lya c k n o w led g e d “ ‘th e p o w e r o f th e S tate re a so n a b lyto r e g u l a t e a l l s c h o o l s , t o i n s p e c t , s u p e r v i s e a n d e x a mi n e t h e m, t hei r teac her s and pupi l s . ’ ” Id

. ( quot i ng P i er ce , 268 U

. S. at 5 3 4 ); see al

so Meyer , 262 U

. S. at402 ( not i ng “[t ] he pow erof t he s t at e t o compel att endanc e at s om e s chool and to m ake r eas onabl e r egul at i ons foral l s chool s . . . [w as ] notques t i oned” byt he par t i es )

. Fur t herm or e, t her e i s “a di s t i nct i on betw een 26t hroug h the i nst rum ent of pri vate s cho ols , i thas a proper i nter esti n the m ann er i n w hich tho se s chool s per form thei rs ecul ar educa t i on funct i on. B d. of E duc. of C ent
. Sch. D is t
. N

o . 1 v. A l l en , 392 U

. S. 236, 2 4 5 -4 7 (1 9 6 8 ) (e x a m in in g v a lid ityo f a N e w Y o rk sta tu te re q u irin g sc h o o l d istric ts to p u rc h a se a n d lo a n tex tb o o k s to s tu d e n ts e n ro lle d in p a ro c h ia l s c h o o ls ). 49 act i ons t hats t r i ke att he hea r tof par ent al deci s i on- m aki ng author i t yon m at t er s of the gr eat es t i m por t ance and otheract i ons t hat

. . . ar e notof cons t i tut i onal di m ens i on. ” C. N. , 430 F. 3d at 184. Par ent s i dent i fyt he gene r al r i ghtt o contr ol t he educ at i on o f o n e ’s c h ild . B u t P a re n ts do n o t h a v e a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to avoi d r eas onabl e s t at e r egul at i on of t hei rchi l dr en’ s educa t i on. A c t 1 6 9 ' s re p o rtin g a n d su p e rin ten d e n t re v iew re q u ire m e n ts e n su re c h ild re n tau g h t in h o m e e d u c a tio n p ro g ra m s d e m o n stra te pr ogr es s i n t he educ at i onal pr o gr am. T he s t atut e does not i nt er fer e, or author i ze any i nt er fer ence , w i t h Par ent s ’ r el i gi ous t eac hi ngs and/ o rus e of r el i gi ous m at er i al s . Par ent s ’ cl ai m under t he Four t eenth A m endmenti s of i ns uffi ci entcon sti tut i onal d im e n sio n to sta te e ith e r a n in d e p e n d e n tlyv iab le o r c o lo ra b le c laim . A c c o rd in g ly , u n d e r b o th th e strin g e n t an d c o lo ra b le hybr i d- r i ght s appr oache s of ours i s t er ci r cui t s , Par ent s have not a s s e rt e d a “ h yb ri d -r ig h ts c la im .” 3

. Par ent s al s o cont end t hat , not w i t hs t andi ng t he di ffe r ent sta n d a rd s a rticu late d b yth e c irc u its re g a rd in g h yb rid -rig h ts50 cl ai m s , t hey r ai s e t he same t ype of cl ai m as t he par ent s i n Y oder

. T hey cont end t hats i nce Y oder i s s t i l l good l aw , par ent s cl ai m i ng a reli gi ous - par ent al exempt i on t o a neutr al l aw of gene r al a p p lica b ili tyg e t th e b e n e f it o f th e tra d iti o n a l F re e E x e rc ise tes t. P a r e n t s a s s e r tt h a t“ i ti s b e y o n d l e g i t i ma t e q u e s t i o n t h a tt h e s a me cons t i tut i onal t es ts e m p loy ed i n Y oderm u st b e u se d h e re to ev alua te th ese P are n ts’ reli g iou s-pa ren tal claim s. ” P are n ts B r. a t 2 7

. I n Y oder , t he C our t gr ant ed a r el i gi ous - bas ed exc ept i on to a re g u la tio n o f

g e n e ra l a p p lic a b ility. C .f. J ohn E

. N ow ak & R onal d D

. R otunda, C ons t i tut i onal L aw § 17. 6 ( 7th ed. 2004) (“ Y od er stan d s o u t as th e o n e ins tanc e in w h ich th e C o u rt r equi r ed the governm entt o gr antt o per s o n s w ho coul d not compl y w i t h t he l aw due t o t hei r r el i gi ous bel i efs an exe m pt i on fr om a l aw r egul at i ng t he conduct of al l per s ons . . . . ”)

. B utthe uni que bur den s uffe r ed byt he A m i s h, combi ned w i t h the Supr eme Court ’ s l i m i t i ng l anguage , di s t i ngui s h Y od er f ro m th is cas e. I n r es pons e t o obj ect i ons byA m i s h ci t i zens , the Y oder C our thel d t hatt he Fi r s tA m endmentr equi r ed a pa r t i al exempt i on fr om a W i s cons i n compul s oryhi gh- s chool educa t i on law re q u irin g c h ild re n to a tten d p u b lic o r p riv a te s c h o o l u n til age 16. T he A m i s h r efus ed t o s end thei rchi l dr en, ages 14 and 15, t o s chool aft er compl et i on of t he ei ghth gr ade of s chool i ng. T h e C o u rt n o ted th e A m ish ’s “ c o n v in c in g sh o w in g :” th e A m ish in th is ca se h a v e c o n v in c in g lyT hi s “mode of l i fe” r efe r ence i n Y od er has been i nt erpr et ed 27 t o r efe rt o a di s t i nctcomm uni ty and w ay of l i fe, not s i m pl ythe c e n tr a lity o f

o n e ’s b e lie f

to h is o r h e r f

a ith

. See P arker , 514 F .3 d a t 1 0 0

. 51 demonstr at ed t he s i ncer i t yof thei rr el i gi ous b e lief s, th e in ter re latio n sh ip o f b e lief w ith th e ir m o d e o f life , the v ital ro le th a t b e lie f a n d d a ily c o n d u c t p lay i n th e c o n tin u e d s u rv iv a l o f O ld O r derA m i s h com m uni t i es and thei rr el i gi ous or gani zat i on, and the haz ar ds pr es ent ed byt he St at e’ s enfor cementof a s t atut e gene r al l yval i d as t o o t hers. Y oder , 406 U

. S. at235. T he C our tappl i ed a he i ght ened l evel of s c ru tin ya n d f

o u n d th e S ta te ’s in te re s t la c k in g . I d. a t 2 3 5 -3 6

. Par ent s favora br oad r eadi ng of Y oder a n d in sis t th a t it appl i es t o al l ci t i zens . B utY oder ’ s r eac h i s r es t r i ct ed byt he C our t ’ s l i m i t i ng l anguage and the fa ct s s ugges t i ng an exce pt i onal bur den i m pos ed on t he pl ai nt i ffs

. I n Y oder , the re lig io u s b e lief

s o f th e A m ish w e re c o m p lete lyin teg ra ted w ith th e irc o m m u n ity a n d “ m o d e o f lif e .” Y oder , 406 U

. S. at235. 27 A s a r esul t , com pu l soryat t end ance w ou l d “sub st anti a lly in ter f e r[ e ] w ith th e re lig io u s d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e A m ish c h ild a n d h is in teg ra tio n in to th e w a yo f life o f th e A m ish f

a ith comm uni t y . ” Id

. at 218. A ccor di ngl y , t he W i s con sin l aw c a rrie d “ a v e ry re a l th re a t o f u n d e rm in in g th e A m ish c o m m u n ity and r el i gi ous pr act i ce, ” i d. , and pl ace d t he cont i nued s ur vi val of52 A m i s h com m u n it ie s i n “dange r , ” i d. at 21 8 n . 9

. C o m p u lsory at t endanc e “pr event ed t hes e A m i s h par ent s fr om m aki ng fu n da m e n ta l deci s i ons r egar di ng t hei rchi l dr en’ s r el i gi ous u p b rin g in g a n d e f

f e c tiv e ly o v e r ro d e th e ir a b ili tyto p a ss th e ir r el i gi on o n to thei rchi l dr en, as thei rfai t h r equi r ed. ” P arker , 514 F. 3d at99- 100 ( ci t i ng Y oder , 4 0 6 U .S . a t 2 3 3 -3 5 ). B ef o re a p p ly ing a h eigh tene d leve l o f scru ti n y , the C o u rt w ant ed t o ens ur e t hat t he “A m i s h r el i gi ous fai t h and thei rm ode o f lif e a re , a s th e yc la im , in s e p a ra b le a n d in te rd e p e n d e n t.” Y oder , 406 U

. S. at 215. R ecogni zi ng t he exc ept i onal natur e of t he A m i s h’ s s how i ng, the C our thel d: “w hen the i nt er es t s of par enthood ar e combi ned w i t h a fr ee e xer ci s e cl ai m of the n a tu re re v e a led b yth is re c o rd , m o re th a n m e re lya ‘re a so n a b le re latio n to so m e p u rp o se w ith in th e c o m p e ten c y o f th e S tate ’ is r equi r ed t o s us t ai n t he val i di t y of t he St at e’ s r equi r ementunder t he Fi r s tA m endment

. ” I d. a t 2 3 3 ; see al

so Moz er tv. H

aw ki ns C ounty B d. of

E duc. , 827 F. 2d 1058, 1067 ( 6th C i r . 1987) (“ Y oderr es t ed on s u ch a s i ngul ars etof fa ct s t hatw e do not b e lie v e it c a n b e h e ld to a n n o u n c e a g e n e ra l ru le . . . .” ). T he U ni t ed St at es C o u rtof A ppeal s fort he Second C i r cui t has i nt erpr et ed t he centr al underpi nni ng of Y od er t o be t h e “ t h r e a tt o t h e A m i s h c o m m u n i t y’ s w a y o f l i f e , p o s e d b y a co m p u ls or ys chool at t endanc e s t atut e. ” L eeba ert , 332 F. 3d at 144. I n L eeba ert , a par ental l eged a vi ol at i on of the F ir st a nd F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n ts b e c a u se a sc h o o l r e f u se d to e x c u se h is s on fr om a mandat or yheal t h and educa ti on cour s e. W hi l e not ques t i oni ng the sinc er i t yof the par ent ’ s bel i efs , t he SecondA s n o te d , Ne w L i f e B a p t is tCh u r c h A c a d e my w as deci ded 28 befor e Sm ith

. A ccor di ngl y , t he Fi r s t C i r cui t appl i ed t he Sh erbertte s t, N

ew Li f e Bap tist C h ur ch Acad. , 885 F. 2d at944 ( ci t i ng Sher ber tv. V

er ner , 374 U

. S. 398 ( 1963) ) , and ana l y zed Y oderw ith in th e “ le s s re s tr ic tiv e a lte rn a tiv e ” c o n te x t. N e w L ife 53 C i r c u i tf o u n d t h e c l a i m s w e r e n o tg o v e r n e d b y Y oder

. See i d. ( pl ai nt i ff di d notal l ege that“hi s comm uni t y ’ s ent i r e w ayof l i fe i s t hr eat ened; ” pl ai nt i ff “ does notas s ertt hatt her e i s an i r r econci labl e Y

od er- l i ke cl as h betw een the es s ence of [ p lain tiff ’s] re lig io u s c u ltu re a n d th e m a n d a to ryh e a lth c u rric u lu m th a t h e c h a llen g e s” ); s e e a l s o Br o wn , 68 F. 3d at539 ( di s t i ngui s hi ng Y

oderb ec au se a o n e-ti m e c o m p u lsory at t endanc e ata hea l t h pr ogr am di d nott hr eat en “thei rent i r e w ay o f li fe ”). I n t he pr e- Sm ith cas e Ne w L i f e B a p t is tCh u r c h A c a d e my v. E as tLongm eadow , 885 F. 2d 940 ( 1s t C i r . 1989) , a r el i gi ous s c h o o l a s s e r t e d a r e ma r k a b l ys i mi l a rc l a i m t o P a r e n t s ’ c l a i m. T h e N e w L if

e B a p tist C h u rc h A c a d e m yre f u se d to c o m p lyw ith s t at e rul es and pr ocedur es for det erm i ni ng t he adequa cy of t he se c u lar e d u c a tio n p ro v id e d b y th e sc h o o l b e c a u se it b e liev e d “ it i s a s i n t o ‘ s ubm i t ’ [i t s ] educ ati o n al ent erpr i s e t o a s ecul ar author i t yforappr oval

. ” I d. at941. Fi ndi ng t hat “the w ei ghtof l egal pr ece dent i s s t r ongl y agai ns t t he A cade m y ’ s pos i t i on, ” i d. a t 9 5 0 , th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e F irst C irc u it c o n c l u d e d t h a t“ t h i s c a s e d i f f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l yf r o m [ Y oder ] , ” i d. at95 1. Itno t ed thatthe st at e’s proced ures

28B apt is t C hur ch Acad. , 885 F. 2d at 948- 52. D es pi t e t hi s , w e fi nd t he Fi r s tC i r cui t ’ s di s cus s i on of Y oderto b e in f

o rm a tiv e . 54 do nott h rea t en i nt er fer ence w i t h r el i gi ous pr ac ti ces , pr ay er , orr el i gi ous t eac hi ng; and the r ecord , w hi l e i ndi cat i ng a s i ncer e r el i gi ous s crupl e, does not s ugges tt hatenfor cementof the [s t at e] pr ocedur es w o u ld des t r oya r el i gi ous co m m u n ity ’s w ayo f li fe

. N o r do es th e r ec o rd su p p o rt th e v ie w th a t th e A c a d e m y , lef t o n its o w n , w o u ld p ro v id e “ id e a l” o r e v e n a d e q u a te se c u lar e d u c a tio n . A ll th e se f a c to rs m a k e th is cas e qui t e unl i ke Y

oder

. I d. (cit ati o n s o m itted). Si m i l ar l y , t he cl ai m r ai s ed by t he A m i s h par ent s i n Y oder can be di s t i ngui s hed fr om the cl ai m r ai s ed byPar ent s her e. A ct 169 does nott hr eat en Par ent s ’ ort hei rcomm uni t y ’ s ent i r e mode of l i fe. E ven though P ar ent s ar e r equi r ed t o keep r ecor ds and s ubm i tt hem for r evi ew , t heyare i n compl et e contr ol of the reli g iou s u p b ri n g ing o f th eir ch il d ren . In f ac t, P are n ts are unabl e t o poi ntt o even one occa s i on i n w hi ch t h e s chool di s t r i ct s hav e ques t i oned thei rr el i gi ous bel i efs , t ext s , or te a c h in g s . T he di s put e i n Y

oderi n v o l v e d a n a d d i t i o n a l o n e o rtwo y e a rs o f e d u c a tio n a t p u b lic s c h o o ls v e rsu s “ v o c a tio n a l” educa t i on athom e. T he A m i s h al l ow ed thei rchi l dr en t o at t endI n D u ro v . D ist. A tto rn e y , Se c o n d

J u d icia l D ist. , 712 F. 2d 29 96 ( 4t h C i r . 1983) , pl ai nt i ffs , w ho hom e- s chool ed thei rchi l dr en, al l eged thatt he s t at e compul s orys chool at t endanc e l aw i nfr i nged upon thei rr el i gi ous bel i efs

. T he di s t r i ctcour t , r el y i ng heavi l yupon Yoder , fo und t he s t at e l aw uncons t i tut i onal as appl i ed t o t he pl ai nt i ffs

. T he Four t h C i r cuit rever s ed, di s t i ngui s hi ng Y

oder

. D uro , 712 F. 2d at98- 99. [I ] n Y oder , the A m ish c h ild re n a tten d e d p u b lic s chool t hr ough the ei ghth gr ade a nd t hen obt ai ned in f o rm a l v o c a tio n a l tra in in g to e n a b le th e m to assi mi l at e i nto t he sel f-contai ned A m i sh

55 publ i c s chool s unt i l ei ghth gr ade a nd s oughtonl ya part i al e x e mp t i o n f

r o m t h e s t a t e ’ s c o mp u l s o r ys c h o o l a t t e n d a n c e l a w. Fur t herm or e, t he C our ti n Y odera s s u m e d th e sta te w o u ld r egul at e the A m i s h’ s hom e educa t i on t o ens ur e the s at i s fac t i on o f e d u c a tio n a l s ta n d a rd s . See Yoder , 4 0 6 U. S. a t2 3 6 ( “The St at es have had a long hi s t oryof ami cabl e and e ffe ct i ve r el at i ons hi ps w i t h chur ch- s pons or ed s chool s , an d the r e i s no b a sis f o r a ss u m in g th a t, i n th is re late d c o n tex t, rea so n a b le s t andar ds cannotbe es t abl i sh ed conce r ni ng the cont entof the cont i nui ng vocat i onal educa t i on of A m i s h chi l dr en under p a re n tal g u id a n c e . . . . ” ). In c o n tra st, P a re n ts re q u e st a f u ll ex em p ti o n fro m A ct 1 6 9 , see k ing to ad m inist er their ch il d ren ’s ent i r e pr i m aryand s econda r y educa t i on w i t houtanyr evi ew by t he C om m onw eal t h. T heyci t e Y oder t o chal l eng e the governm ent ’ s author i t yt o engage i n the r eg ul at i on and di s c r e t i on a r yr e vi e w of t he i rho me e du c a t i on pr og ram s. 29comm uni t y . H ow ever, i n t he pr es entcas e, [pl ai nt i ff] r efus es t o enr ol l hi s chi l dr en i n any publ i c ornonpubl i c s chool foranyl ength of t i m e, buts t i l l expec t s them t o be full y i nt egr at ed and l i ve norm al l yi n t he m odern w or l d upon r eac hi ng t he age of 18. I d. at98. A l t hough Par ent s c o n t e n dth e yc a n “ r eadi l ydemonstr at e” t hatt hei rchi l dr en w i l l be se l f- s uffi ci enteven i f theydo not s ubm i tt hei r chi l dr en’ s w or k on an annual bas i s t o a governm ent off i c i a l f o rh i s r e v i e w, Pa r e n t s Br

. a t3 1 , t h e i rc l a i m r emai ns di s t i ngui s habl e. T he A m i s h al l ow ed thei rchi l dr en t o at t end publ i c s chool s unt i l t he compl et i on of 8th gr ade. T her efor e, the S tate w a s a ss u re d th a t th e A m ish c h ild re n re c e iv e d a sta te appro v ed educat i on and the C our tfound an a ddi t i onal one or tw o y e a rs o f c o m p u lso ryf o rm a l ed u c a tio n to b e in su f f icie n t to o v e rc o m e th e A m ish ’s in ter e sts . In th is c a se , P a re n ts s e e k to hom e- s chool t hei rchi l dr en fort hei rent i r e pri m aryand s e c o n d a ry e d u c a tio n . 56 P a re n ts’ c laim is d istin g u ish a b le f ro m th e A m ish p a re n ts’ c laim i n Y oder

. C

. Si nce A ct169 s ur vi ves r at i onal bas i s r evi ew and s i nce Par ent s have f

ai l ed t o es t abl i s h that an exce pt i on t o Sm ith ’s neutr al l aw of gene r al appl i cabi l i t yrul e appl i es , Par ent s ’ fede r al c o n stitu tio n a l cla im s f

a il.S ect i on 24 04 st at es: 30 ( a ) G e n e ra l ru le. E x c e p t as p ro v id e d in su b se c tio n (b ), an a g e n c ysh a ll n o t su b sta n tia lly bur den a per s on’ s fr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gion, i ncl udi ng anybur den w hi ch r es ul t s fr om a rul e of g e n e r a l a p p l i c a b i l i t y. ( b ) E x c e p t i o n s . A n a g e n c y m a y s u b sta n tia lly bur den a per so n ’s f

r ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on i f the agencypr oves , bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence , t hatthe bur den i s al l of the fol l ow i ng: ( 1) In fur t her ance of a c om pel l i ng i n t e r e s to f

th e a g e n c y. ( 2) T he l eas tr es t r i ct i ve means of f u rth e rin g th e c o m p e lli n g in ter e st. I d. § 2 4 0 4 (em p h ase s ad d ed ). 57 I V. In a d d iti o n to th e ir f

e d e ra l c o n stitu tio n a l cla im s, P a re n ts as s er ta s t ate st atut orycl ai m underthe R el i gi ous Fr eedom P ro tec tio n A c t, 71 P a . S tat. A n n . § § 2 4 0 1

– 2 4 0 7 . In o r d e r to obt ai n r el i ef unde rR FPA , Par ent s m us tpr ove bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence thatthei r“fr ee e xer cise o f r el i gi on has been b u r d e n e d o r l i k e l y wi l l b e b u r d e n e d i n v i o l a t i o n of [§ 2 4 0 4 ].” I

d. § 2405(f). I f Par ent s s at i s fyt hi s bur den, t he 30 s chool di s t r i ct s ar e re qui r ed t o pr ove, bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence , t hatA ct169 fur t her s a com pel l i ng i nt er es tand i s t he lea st re stric ti v e m e a n s o f f u rth e rin g th e in ter e st. 7 1 P a . S tat.A s n o ted , R F P A d e f in e s “ su b sta n tiallyb u rd e n ” a s: 31 A n agencyact i on w hi ch does anyof the f o llo w in g : (1 ) S ig n if

ica n tlyc o n stra in s o r in h ib its co n d u ct or e x p ression m a n d ated b ya p erso n ’s sin c e re lyh e ld re lig io u s b e lief s. (2 ) S ig n if

ica n tly c u rta ils a p e rso n ’s a b ili tyto e x p re ss a d h e re n c e to t he per s on’ s r el i gi ous fai t h. ( 3) D eni es a pe rs on a r eas onabl e oppor tuni ty t o engage i n act i vi t i es w hi ch ar e funda m ent al to the per s on’ s r el i gi on. ( 4) C om pel s conductorexpr es s i on w hi ch vi ol at es a s peci fi c t enetof a pe r s on’ s r el i gi ous fai t h. 71 Pa. St at
. A nn. § 2403. 58 A nn . § 240 4(a) –(b). T hu s, as a threshol d m at t er, P arent s m ust prove, bycl ear and con vinci ng evidence, t hat theirfree exerci se o f re lig io n h a s o r w ill li k e ly b e “ s u b s ta n tia lly b u rd e n e d .” 31 T he D i stri ctC ou rtcon cl ud ed P arent s fa i l ed t o est abli sh b yc lea r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t A c t 1 6 9 su b sta n tially b u rd e n s th e irf

re e e x e rc is e o f

re lig io n . C om bs , 468 F. Supp. 2d at 77 1

. Itg ran ted th e sc h o o l distri cts’ m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm ent on bot h t he fac i al and as - appl i ed cha l l enges bas ed on th e R F P A

. I

d. Par ent s as s erterr or , co n tendi ng t he D i s t r i ct C our tei t herfai l ed t o r evi ew or m i s appl i ed t he actual t extof the s t atut e. Fur t her , t heyar gue thatbeca us e the fourt h defi ni t i on of “s ubs t ant i al l ybur den” i s cl earand unambi guous , t he D i s t r i ct C our ti m pr oper l y r es or t ed t o extr aneous s our ces l i ke l egi s l at i ve his t oryand fede ral cases i nterpret i ng the fe deral F ree Ex erci seIn 2 0 0 7 , th e C o m m o n w e a lth C o u rt o f P e n n s ylva n ia 32 i nt erpr et ed the thi r d defi n it ion of s ubs t ant i al l ybur den –

“ [ d ]e n ies a p e rs o n a re a so n a b le o p p o rtu n ityto e n g a g e in a c tiv itie s w h ic h a re f

u n d a m e n ta l to th e p e rs o n ’s re lig io n .” R i dl ey Park

U ni t ed Methodis t C h ur ch v. Zoni ng Hear i ng B d. R i dl ey Park

B or ough ( R i dley Pa rk) , 920 A

. 2d 953, 957- 61 ( Pa. C o m m w . C t. 2 0 0 7 ). T h e co u rt co n clud ed that b ec au se “ d ay ca re i s nota funda m ent al r el i gi ous act i vi t yof a c hur ch, ” the Zoni ng H e a ri n g B o a rd e rr o n e o u s ly ap p lie d R F P A

. I d. at960. 59 C la u s e a n d th e f

e d e ra l R e lig io u s F re e d o m R e s to ra tio n A c t. P a re n ts in v o k e th e f

o u rth d e f

in iti o n o f

“ su b sta n tially bu rden” – “[c]om pels c o n d uct orexp res si on w hich vi olat es a s p e c if ic te n e t o f a p e rs o n ’s re lig io u s f a ith .” 7 1 P a . S ta t. A n n . § 2403. Par ent s cont end A ct169 compel s “conduc tor expr es s i on” byr equi r i ng them t o s ubm i t t he cont entand r ecor ds of thei r chi l dren’s edu cat i on al progress t o the schoo l dis t ri ct s. B eca us e thes e s u bm i s s i ons ar e s ubj ectt o r evi ew and appr oval byt he scho ol di stri ct s, P arent s contend A ct16 9 v i olat es a
“ sp e c if ic te n e t” o f

th e ir re lig io u s f

a ith – th a t “ e d u c a tio n o f th e ir chi l dr en, not m er el y t he ‘r el i gi ous educa t i on, ’ i s ‘ r el i gi on’ and is assign ed b yG o d to the juri sd ict ion o f th e f am il y . ” P are n ts B r. a t 6 4

. T h e c o n str u c tio n a n d a p p lica tio n o f R F P A ’s f

o u rth defini t i on of “su bst anti al l ybu rden” i s an i ssue o f fi rs t i m pr es s i on and a m att er of Penns y l vani a l aw . A s no ted, the

32 D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on w as bas ed upon 28 U

. S. C

. §§ 1331,60 1343( a) ( 3 ), 1 367 and 1441. B eca us e w e af fi r m t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enton al l of Par ent s ’ fede r al c la im s , o n ly th e irs ta te la w c la im re m a in s . U n d e r 2 8 U

. S .C . § 1367( c) , “di s t r i ctcour t s m ay decl i ne t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on” overa s t at e l aw cl ai m i f “the cl ai m r ai s es a novel or c o mpl e x i s s u e o f St a t e l a w . . . [ o r ] t h e d i s t r i c t cour t has di s m i s s ed al l cl ai m s over w hi ch i thas or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on. ” I d. S e c tio n 1 3 6 7 (c ) p ro v id e s c o u rts “ th e d isc re tio n to re f u se to exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on w hen ‘ val ues of j udi ci al economy , conveni ence , fai r nes s , and comi t y ’ couns el thatthe di s tr i ctcour tr emand st at e cl ai m s t o a s t at e forum . ” H uds on U ni t ed B ank v. Li Tenda Mor t gage C or p. , 142 F. 3d 151, 157 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( quot i ng C i t

y of C hi cago v. I

nt ’ lC ol l

. of

Sur geons , 522 U

. S. 156, 173 ( 1997) )

. A deci s i on t o r emand unders ect i on 1367 “r efl ect s t he cour t ’ s j udgm ent
. . . t hatatt he pr es ents t age of l i t i gat i on i tw oul d be bes tfor s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on t o be d e c lin e d so th a t sta te is su e s m a y b e a d ju d ica ted b ya sta te cour t
. ” H

uds on U ni t ed Bank , 142 F. 3d at158 ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Mi ne W orker s v. G i bbs , 3 8 3 U

. S

. 7 1 5 , 7 2 6 -27 (19 6 6 )). Par ent s ’ onl yr emai ni ng cl ai m i nvol ves t he i nt erpr et at i on o f a sta te s tatu te o n w h ich th e re is n o P e n n sy lv a n ia p re c e d e n t. B ec au se a ll fe d era l i ssu es h av e b ee n d ec ided o n su m m ary j udgm entand s i nce Parent s ’ R FPA cl ai m r ai s es a novel and p o te n ti a llyc o m p lex iss u e o f S tate law , w e w ill d e c lin e to e x e rc ise su p p lem e n tal ju risd ictio n o v e r P a re n ts’ p e n d e n t sta teSh a fferv . B o a rdo

f Sc h o o l D ire c to rs o

f A lb e rt G a lla tin 33 A r ea School

D is tr i ct , 730 F. 2d 910 ( 3d C i r . 1984) , a pr e- s ect i on 1367 deci s i on, s upp o r t s t hi s concl us i on. I n Shaf f er , w e found t hat“w her e the under l y i ng i s s ue of stat e l aw i s a ques t i on of fi r s ti m pr es s i on w i t h i mpo rt a n ti mpl i c a t i o n s forpubl i c educ at i on i n Penns y l vani a, fac t or s w ei ghi ng i n favor of s t at e c o u rt adj udi cat i on cert ai nl ypr edomi nat e. ” I d. at913. 61 law claim

. 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 3 6 7 (c). 33 V

. Fort he f

o regoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the s chool di s t r i ct s on Par ent s ’ fede r al cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s , vac ate the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s hol di ng r egar di ng t he pende ntR FPA cl ai m , and r emand t he ca s e t o t he D i s t r i ctC ourtw i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o r emand th e R F P A c laim to sta te c o u rt.62 S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , c o n c u rr in g . Sect i on 1367(c) pr ovi des : “The di s t r i ctcour t s m ay d e c lin e to e x e rc ise su p p lem e n tal ju risd ictio n o v e r a c laim

. . . if (1 ) t h e c la im ra is e s a n o v e l o r c o m p le x is s u e o f S ta te la w . . . [ o r] (3 ) th e d istric t c o u rt h a s d ism iss e d a ll c laim s o v e r w h ich it has or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on . . . . ” 28 U

. S

. C

. § 1367( c)

. T he D i s t r i ct C our t her e exer ci s ed s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on over Par ent s ’ s t at e l aw R el i gi ous Fr eedom Prot ect i on A ctcl ai m . T he cl ai m w as ful l ypr es ent ed t o and adj udi cat ed byt he D i s t r i ct C o u rt . I w o u ld d e c id e th e is s u e . A s n o ted , in o rd e r to o b tain re lie f u n d e r R F P A , P a re n ts m us tp r o v e b yc l e a ra n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a tt h e i rf r ee e x e rc ise o f

re lig io n h a s b e e n su b sta n tiallyb u rd e n e d o r lik e ly w ill b e s u b s ta n tia lly b u rd e n e d

. I d. § 2 4 0 4 , 2 4 0 5 (f

). If P a re n ts s at i s fyt hi s bur den, t he school di s t r i ct s ar e re qui r ed t o pr ove, by a prepo nd erance of the evidence, that A ct16 9 f u rt hers a compel l i ng i nt er es tand i s t he l eas tr es t r i ct ive m eans of furtheri ng t he int eres t
. 71 P a. S t at
. A nn . § 2 40 4(a) –(b). T hu s, as a t hr es hol d m at t er , Par ent s m us tpr ove, bycl earand co n vi nci ng evi dence , thatthei rfr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on has or w i l l l i kel ybe “s ubs t ant i al l ybur dened. ” Par ent s have made conf l i ct i ng cl ai m s as t o w hatconduct orr evi ew byt he s chool di s t r i ct s cons t i tut es a s ubs t ant i al bur den. In th e ir c o m p lain t, P a re n ts c h a llen g e a ll state re v iew o f th e irS e e , e .g ., C om bs C om pl. ¶ 12 (“M r. and M rs . C om bs’ 34 r el i gi ous bel i efs acknow l edge thatthe ci vi l governm entm ay re q u ire th e m to e d u c a te th e ir c h ild re n , b u t, ac c o rd in g to th e ir re lig io u s b e lief

, the c iv il g o v e r n m e n t lac k s ju risd ictio n to appr ove oradmi ni s t r at i vel ys upervis e the educ at i on they pr ovi de. ”) ; C om bs C om pl

. ¶ 14 ( “I t i s a spec i fi c t enet of M r . and M r s . C om bs ’ r el i gi ous fai t h, r oot ed i n thei runder s t andi ng of the B i bl e, t hati tw oul d be s i nful forthem t o engage i n conductor ex p ression th at w o u ld g ran t con tr o l ov er the irch il d ren ’s e d u c a tio n to th e c iv il g o v e rn m e n t.”); H a n k in C o m p l. ¶ 2 0 (“ It is a s peci fi c t entof M r . and M r s . H anki n’ s r el i gi ous fai t h, r oot ed i n the i runder s t andi ng of the B i bl e, t hati tw oul d be s i nful for them to hav e an y asso ciati o n w ith the pu b li c sch o o l sy stem
. ”). See, e. g. , M a r y a l i c e Newbo r n Dep

. a t 4 9 , Aug

. 3 0 , 2005 35 ( “ Q: Wh a tl e v e l o f

s t a t e r e v i e w wo u l d b e a c c e p t a b l e t o y o u ? A: N one. ”) ; T hom as H anki n D ep. at55, Sept

. 6, 2005, ( “I per s onal l ybel i eve thatif the di s cr et i on of the s chool di s t r i ct w e re re m o v e d , the re w o u ld b e a lo t les s tro u b le r e lig io u slyw ith m yb e li e f

s ; th a t is, if I s u b m itt e d to th e sc h o o l d istric t a sta tem ent t hat sai d .

. . I am edu cat i ng m y chil dren and this is w h at I’m teac h ing them this y ea r. ”). 63 h o m e e d u c a tio n p ro g ra m s. B u t d e p o sitio n te s tim o n yre v e a ls 34 so m e v a ria n c e b yP a re n ts o n th e p e r m is s ib le le v e l o f sta te o v e rsig h t. N e v e rth e les s, in th e ir D istric t C o u rt b rie f s, P a re n ts 35 agai n cont en d ed tha t“pl aci ng of author i t yi n anys t at e age ncy viol at es theirsi ncerel yheld rel i gious bel i efs” and that “i ti s aSee a l so Par ent s B r . O pp’ n t o D ef. ’ s M ot
. Sum m . J

. at10, 36 A p r. 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 (“ B e c a u se P lain tiff s b e liev e th a t a lle d u c a tio n is inh ere n tl yreli g iou s, C ae sar h as n o juri sd ict ion o v er itat all

. ”); i d. at11 ( ci t i ng H erber tW

. T i tus , foundi ng dean of R egent U ni ver s i t ySchool of Law , fort he pr opos i t i on t hat“[b] oth the E sta b lish m e n t an d th e F re e E x e rc ise c lau se s p re c lu d e th e c iv il governm entfr om exer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on over t he educ at i on of th e p e o p le .” ). 64 s peci fi c t enetof thei rr el i gi ous fai t h thatt he St at e l acks t he ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r e d u c a tio n a n d th e f a m ily th a t A c t 1 6 9 a s s e rt s .” Par ent s B r . O p p ’n t o D ef. ’ s M ot
. Sum m . J

. at9- 10, A pr . 14, 2 0 0 6

. A t o ra l ar g u m e n t, h o w e v e r, P a re n ts’ c o u n se l ag a in

36 s hi ft ed the foc us of thei r cl ai m s and appe ar ed t o conce de that t he obj ect i onabl e por t i on of A ct169 w as nott he r ecor d keepi ng, t est i ng , or thir d p artyevaluat i on , bu tthe scho ol dis t ri ct s’ ind ep en d en t, “d iscretio n ary ” re v iew o f th eir ch il d ren ’s e d u c a tio n a l p ro g re ss . B u t a s s u m in g a p ro p e r c o n c e ss io n , this pos s i bl e al t er at i on of t he cl ai m w as notm ade be for e the D i s t r i ct C o u rt
. I

. A s n o ted, th e c o n s tru cti o n an d ap p li ca ti o n o f R F P A ’s fou rth d efi nit i on of “su bst anti al l ybu rden” i s an i ssu e of f i rs t i mp r e s s i o n . Be c a u s e t h i s i s a ma t t e r o f P e n n s y l v a n i a l a w, “ we m u st p re d ict h o w th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt, i f f a c e d w ith t he i dent i ca l iss ue, w oul d cons t rue the s t atut e. ” P r udent i al P r op. & Cas. I

ns . C o. v. P endl eton , 8 5 8 F

. 2 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 4 (3d C ir

.T he C om m onw eal t h’ s rul es of s t atut orycons tru ct i on, 37 codi fi ed at1 Pa. C ons . St at
. §§ 1901–1978, “s hal l be obs erved, unl es s t he appl i cat i on of s uch rul es w oul d r es ul ti n a cons t ruct i on i ncons i s t ent w i t h t he m ani fes t i nt ent of t he G ener al A s s embl y . ” I

d. § 1901. “The obj ectof al l i nt erp r et at i on and cons t ru c t i o n o f s t a tu t e s i s t o a s c e r t a i n a n d e f f e c tu a t e t he i nt ent i on of the G ener al A s s embl y . ” I d. § 1 9 2 1 (a ). W o rd s an d p h ra se s ar e c o n stru e d “ a c c o rd in g to th e ir comm on and appr oved us age, ” w her eas t echni cal w or ds w hi ch ar e def i ned w i l l be cons t rued ac cor di ng t o thei rpecul i ar d e f in itio n s . I

d. § 1903. “W hen t he w or ds of t he s t atut e ar e cl ear and fr ee f

r om all ambi gui t y , the l ett erof i ti s nott o be di s r ega rde d u n dert he pr et extof pur s ui ng i t s s pi r i t
. ” I d. § 1 9 2 1 (b ). T h e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt “ h a s re p e a ted ly r ecogni zed th atrul es of cons t ruct i on, s uch as cons i der at i on of a sta tu te’ s p e rc e iv e d ‘o b jec t’ o r ‘p u rp o se ,’ a re to b e re so rte d to onl yw hen ther e i s an ambi gui t y . ” C o m m onw eal th v. Tayl or , 8 4 1 A .2 d 1 0 8 , 1 1 2 (P a . 2 0 0 4 ). H o w e v e r, [ w ]h e n th e w o rd s o f

th e s ta tu te a re n o t ex p licit, t he i n t e n t i o n o f t h e Gen e r a l As s e mbl y maybe ascer t ai ned bycon si deri ng , am on g o t her m at t ers : ( 1) T he occa s i on and nece s s i t yforthe s t atut e. ( 2) T he ci r cumst ances underw hi ch i tw as enac t ed. ( 3) T he mi s chi ef t o be r emedi ed. ( 4) T he obj ect t o b e a t t a i n e d

. ( 5 ) T h e f o r m e r l a w , i f

a n y, i ncl udi ng ot hers t atut es upon t he s ame ors i m i l ar

65 1 9 8 8 ). 37s ubj ect s . ( 6) T he conse q uence s of a pa r t i cul ar i nt erpr et at i on. ( 7) T he co n t empora neous l e g i s l a t i v e hi s t or y . ( 8) L egi s l at i ve and admi ni s t r at i ve i nt erpr et at i ons of s uch s t atut e. 1 P a . C o n s . S ta t. § 1 9 2 1 (c ). 66 I n cons t rui ng t he m eani ng of “s ubs t ant i al l ybur den, ” the D i s t r i c t Cou r t r e l i e d o n t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a tu t e , t he an al y s i s of “s ubs t ant i al l ybur den” i n t he “c ont extof Fr ee E xer ci s e C l aus e and s i m i l arfr eedom of r el i gi on r es t or at i on act s , ” and the i nt entof the G ener al A s s embl yt o r es t or e the “tr adi t i onal ( pr e- Sm ith ) f re e e x e rc is e o f

r e lig io n s ta n d a rd s .” C om bs , 468 F. Supp. 2d at 771. A s not ed, Par ent s cont end the D i s t r i ctC our tei t heri gnor ed orm i s appl i ed the pl ai n l anguage of t he s t atut e and i m pr oper l y i ncl uded l egi s l at i ve hi s t ory and pr eSm ith decis i on s i n it s anal y si s. II. P a re n ts r e lye x c lu siv e lyu p o n th e R F P A ’s f o u rth defi ni t i on of “s ubs t ant i al l ybur den” – “ an age ncyact i on w hi ch

. . . [c]om pels con du ctor expressi on w hich vi olat es a spec if ic t enetof a pe r s on’ s r el i gi ous fai t h. ” 71 Pa. St at
. A nn. § 2403. Par ent s cont end theyar e compe l l ed, undert hr eatof truancy char ges , t o s ubm i t t he por t fol i o of thei rchi l dr en’ s w or k pr oduct t o t he s chool di s t r i ct s fordi s cr et i onaryr evi ew . Par ent s des cr i be t he ac t of tur ni ng over t he por t fol i o fordi s cr et i onaryr evi ew as “conduc t orexpr es s i on. ” Theypoi ntt o t he exe r ci s e of e di t or i al j udgm entand cr eat i vi t yon t he partof t he home educat i onI assu m e, w ith o u t d e c id in g , that P are n ts’ ac ti o n s are 38

“ c o n d u c t o r e x p re s s io n ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e R F P A

. 67 su p e rv iso r a s e v id e n c e o f th is e x p re ss io n . M o re o v e r, P a re n ts 38 a s s e rt a “ s p e c if

ic te n e t” b a s e d u p o n c e rt a in re lig io u s b e lie f s . Fi r s t , Par ent s m ai nt ai n t hei r fai t h t eac hes t hat“educ at i on o f th e ir c h ild re n , n o t m e re lyth e ‘re lig io u s e d u c a tio n ,’ is ‘r e lig io n .’” P a re n ts B r. a t 6 4 . P a re n ts c ite , in tera lia , De u t e r o n o my 6 :5 -7 (N IV ) (“ L o v e th e L o rd y o u r G o d w ith a ll y o urheartand w i t h al l y ours oul and w i t h al l y ours t r ength. T hes e comm andment s that I gi ve y ou t odayar e t o be upon y our heart s . I m pr es s t hem on y our chi l dr en. T al k aboutthem w hen y o u sit a t h o m e a n d w h e n y o u w a lk a lo n g th e ro a d , w h e n y o u lie d o w n a n d w h e n y o u g e t u p .” ), P s a lms 145: 4 ( N I V ) ( “O ne g e n e ra tio n w ill c o m m e n d y o u r w o r k s to a n o th e r; th e yw ill tell o f y o u r m ig h ty ac ts .” ), E

phes i ans 6: 4 ( N I V ) ( “Fath ers, do not exas per at e y ourchi l dr en; i ns t ead, br i ng t hem up i n the tr ai ni ng and i ns t ruct i o n of the Lord. ”) , and P r over bs 22: 6 ( “Tra i n up a chi l d i n t he w ayhe s houl d go and w hen he i s o ld, h e w i l l not depart fr om i t
. ”) , for t he pr opos i t i on t hatG od has di r ect l ycal l ed u p o n th e m to h o m e e d u c a te th e irc h ild re n . Second, Par ent s cont end G od has as s i gned r el i gi ous m a tte rs to th e e x c lu s iv e ju ri s d ic tio n o f th e f a m ily, c itin g , i nt er a lia , Luke 20: 25 ( “Then r ender t o C aes ar t he t hi ngs that are C a e s a r’ s , a n d to G o d th e th in g s th a t ar e G o d ’s .” ), P s l a ms 1 2 7 :3 (N IV ) (“S o n s are a h erit ag e f rom th e L o rd, ch il d ren a re w ard f ro m h im .” ), Ma t th e w 7 :6 (“ D o n ’t g iv e w h a t is ho ly to u n h o lyT he Pr evi s hes al s o ci t e the C at echi s m o f the R om an 39 C a th o lic C h u rc h

. S e e , e .g ., C atechism 2223 ( “Par ent s have the fi r s tr es pons i bi l i t y for t he educa t i on of thei rchi l dr en. T heybear w itn ess to this res p o n sibil ityfirstb ycre ati n g a h o m e w h ere t endernes s , for gi venes s , r es pect , fi deli ty , and di s i nt er es t ed s ervi ce a r e the rul e. T he hom e i s w el l s ui t ed foreduca t i on i n the vi r tues . T hi s r equi r es an a ppr ent i ces hi p i n s el f- deni al , s ound j udgm ent , and s el f-m astery– t he pr econdi t i ons of al l true fr eedom. Par ent s s houl d t eac h thei rchi l dr en t o s ubor di nat e the

‘ m at er i al and i ns t i nctual di m ens i on s t o i nt er i orand s pi r i tual o n e s.’” ); C atechism 2229 ( “A s tho s e fi r s tr es pons i bl e fort he educa t i on of thei rchi l dr en, paren ts have the r i ghtt o choos e a schoo l for them w hich corr espon ds t o thei r ow n co nv i ct i on s. 68 peopl e. ”) , 1 C or i nthi ans 10: 31 ( “W hat every ou do, do i tal l for t he g lory of G od. ”) , 2 Ti m othy 2: 15 ( “B e di l i gentt o pr es ent y our s el f appr oved t o G od. ”) , 1 Thes s al oni ans 2: 4 ( “W e ar e not t r y i ng t o pl eas e m en but G od, w ho t es t s ourheart s . ”) , and A c ts 5: 29 ( “W e must obey G od r athert han men. ”)

. Par ent s cont end A ct169 r epl ace s t he hea d s hi p of C hr i s tovert he fa m i l y , and th e ir h e a d sh ip o v e r th e ir c h ild re n , w ith th e h e a d sh ip o f th e sta te o v e r t h e f

a m ily, c itin g , in tera lia , 1 C or i nthi ans 1 1 : 3 ( NI V) (“ N o w I w a n t y o u to re a lize th a t th e h e a d o f e v e ry m a n is C h rist, a nd t he head of the w om an i s m an, and t he head of C h rist is G o d .” ), E

ph esi an s 5: 23 ( N I V ) ( “Fort he hus band i s t he hea d of t he w i fe a s C hr i s ti s t he head of the chur ch, hi s body , of w hi ch he i s t he Savi or . ”) , and E ph esi an s 6: 1 ( N IV ) (“C hi l dr en, obey y o u r p a re n ts in th e L o rd , fo r th is is rig h t.”). A s a re su lt o f th is 39Th i s r i g h ti s f u n d a me n t a l

. As f

a ra s p o s s i b l e p a r e n t s h a v e t he dut y of choos i ng s chool s t hat w i l l bes t hel p t hem i n t hei rt as k as Chr i s t i a n e d u c a t o r s . Pu b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s h a v e t h e d u t yof g u a ra n tee in g th is p a re n ta l rig h t an d o f e n su rin g c o n c re te co n d it ion s fo r i ts ex erc ise. ”). S e c ti o n 1 9 9 1 d e f

in e s w o rd s a n d p h ra se s f o r “ a n ysta tu te 40 fi nal l yenac t ed on oraft erSept ember1, 1937. ” 69 “s peci fi c t enet , ” Par ent s as s ert a s i ncer el y hel d r el i gi ous bel i ef t hatt he s chool di s t r i ct s have no author i t yt o compel r epor t i ng or t o engage i n di s cr et i onary r evi ew of t hei r hom e ed u ca ti on p r o g r a m. T he t erm “s peci fi c t enet ” i s notdefi ned i n the R el i gi ous Fr eedom Prot ect i on A ctor1 Pa. C ons . St at
. § 1991. T he 40 O xfor d E ngl i s h D i ct i onarydefi nes “s peci fi c” a s “pr ecise or exac ti n r es pectof ful fi l m ent , condi t i ons , ort erm s ; defi ni t e, expl i ci t ” and “ exac t l ynamed ori ndi cat ed , orcapa bl e of be i ng s o ; p r eci s e, par t i cul ar . ” 2 O xfor d E ngl i s h D i ct i onary2949 (C o m p a c t ed . 1 9 7 1 ); see al so M erriam -W eb ster’s D ict ion ary 1132 ( 9t h ed. 1990) ( defi ni ng “sp ec ifi c” a s “s har i ng orbei ng t hos e pr oper t i es of s om ethi ng t hatal low i tt o be r efe r r ed t o a p a rticu lar c a teg o ry ” o r a s “ f re e f ro m a m b ig u ity ” ). “ T e n e t” is d e f in e d a s “ [ a ] d o c trin e , d o g m a , p rin c ip le, o r o p in io n , in re lig io n , p h ilo so p h y , p o lit ics o r th e lik e , h e ld b ya sc h o o l, se c t, par t y , orper s on. ” 2 O xfor d E ngl i s h D i ct i onary 3260 ( C om pact e d . 1 9 7 1 ); see al

so M err i am-W ebs t er ’ s D i ct i onary1215 ( 9th ed.T h e w o rds “ sp ec ifi c,” “s p ec ifi city , ” a n d “p arti cu lari ty ” a re 41 fami l i art erm s i n Penns y l vani a and fede r al pr ocedur al l aw , and i n t hatcont ext , denot e a he i ght ened pl eadi n g stan dar d as o p p o sed to a m o re g en era l ( n o ti ce ) st an d a rd

. See, e. g. , Muham m ad v. S tras s bur ger, McKenna, Mes s er, Shi l obod & G utni ck , 587 A

. 2d 1346, 1352 ( Pa. 1991) ( “B oth R ul e 1019( b) of the Penns y l vani a R ul es of C i vi l P r ocedur e and c as e l aw req ui r e t ha tfr a ud be pl e a d wi t h s pe c i fi c i t y . The a pp e l l ees’ c o mp l a i n td o e s n o t r i s e t o th e l e v e l o f s p e c i f i c i t yth a twe re q u ire .” (c itatio n o m itt e d )); c .f. I n r e A dvanta C or

p. Sec. Li t ig. , 1 8 0 F .3 d 5 2 5 , 5 3 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (n o tin g , in th e P riv a te Secur i t i es L i t i gat i on R eform A ct ( “PSL R A ”) fr aud cont ext , t hat the P S L R A “e ch o es p rec isel yF ed

. R

. C iv. P

. 9 (b) a n d there fo re r equi r es pl ai nt i ffs t o pl ead ‘ t he w ho, w hat , w hen, w her e, and h o w . . . .” (c ita tio n o m m itte d ))

. 70 1990) ( defi ni ng “t enet ” as “a pr i nci pl e, beli ef, ordoctr i ne gene rall yhel d t o be true; es peci al l y : one hel d i n comm on by m em b ers o f a n o rga n izati o n , g rou p , m o v em en t, o r pro fe ssion ”). In th e re lig io u s c o n tex t, th e ter m “ sp e c if ic te n e t” is di ffi cul tt o defi ne. E ven though a r el i gi ous conce ptm aybe 41 sta ted gen eral l y , i tm ay , i n the bel i ever’ s m i nd , be a spe ci fic r el i gi ous t enet
. A t one end of the s pectrum , s peci fi ci t ym aybe r el at i vel ys t r ai g h tfo r w ar d and ea s yt o i dent i fybeca us e the “s peci fi c t enet ” i s obs erved as an outw ard m ani fes t at i on of a par t i cul arr el i gi ous bel i ef. For exampl e, i n Fr at er nalO r derof P oli ce N ew ark L od

ge N o. 12 v. N

ew ark , 1 7 0 F

. 3 d 3 5 9 (3d C ir

.71 1999) , t w o Sunni M us l i m o ff icer s s ucce s s ful l ychal l enged a n i nternal or der r equ i ri ng al l po l i ce of fi cers t o s hav e t heirbeards. P lai nt i ffs ar t i cul at ed a r el i gi ous comm andmentt o gr ow and w e a r a b e a rd

. I

d. a t 3 6 0 -6 1 ; se e a lso D e v e a u x v . P h ila d e lp h ia , N o. 3103 Feb. T erm 2005, 2005 W L 1869666, at *1-2 ( Pa. C om . Pl

. J ul y1 4, 2005) ( gr ant i ng a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on p re v e n tin g th e c ityf

ro m su sp e n d in g a p ra c tici n g M u slim firef igh te r w itho u t payfo r refu sing to sh av e h is be ard ). In Sher ber tv. V

er ner , 374 U

. S. 398 ( 1963) , a m emberof the Seventh- day A dvent i s tC hur ch cha l l enged s t at e unempl oym ent c o m p e n sa tio n ru les th a t c o n d iti o n e d th e a v a ilab ili ty o f b e n e f its upon herw i l l i ngnes s t o w or k undercondi t i ons forbi dden byher rel i gion. T he C ou rt ackn ow l edg ed that“t he p rohi bit i on against S aturday lab o r i s a basi c t enet of t he S even t h-dayA dv enti st c re e d , b a se d u p o n th a t re lig io n ’ s in terp re tatio n o f th e H o ly B i bl e. ” I d. a t 3 9 9 n .1

. F u rth e rm o re , relig io u s d iet a rylaw s w o u ld a p p e a r to qual i fyas s peci fi c t enet s . I n W il li a m s v. B i tner , 455 F. 3d 186 ( 3 d C ir

. 2006) , a M us l i m i nm at e as s i gned t o ki t chen dutyw as di s ci pl i ned for r efus i ng t o ai d other s i n the cons um pt i on of pork. C i t i ng t he K or an ( “H e has forbi dden y ou . . . the fl es h of sw in e ” ) a n d C h a p ter E lev e n o f L e v iti c u s in th e O ld T e sta m e n t, W ill iam s a v e rre d th a t h a n d lin g a n d se rv in g p o rk w o u ld v io late h is re lig io u s f

a ith

. I d. at187. O ur cour thel d that“pr i s on o f f ic ia ls m u s t r e s p e c t a n d a c c o m m o d a te , w h e n p r a c t ic a b le , a M us l i m i nm at e’ s r el i gi ous bel i efs r egar di ng pr ohi bi t i ons on t he h a n d l i n g o f

p o r k ” a n d a f

f i r m e d th e d e n i a l o f

q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y.72 I d. a t 1 9 4

. See a l

so D eH artv. H orn , 390 F. 3d 262, 272- 75 ( 3d C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) (d isc u ss in g a B u d d h ist p riso n e r’s R e lig io u s L a n d U se and Inst i tuti on al i zed P ers on s A ctcl ai m based up on his request f o r a s p e c ia l d ie t)

. A t t h e o th e r e n d o f

th e sp e c tru m a re c laim s s im ilar to P a re n ts’. T h e se c laim s c ite m o re g e n e ra l an d les s o b v io u sly m a n if e ste d c o n c e p ts. T h is is n o t to u n d e rv a lu e th e se te n e ts w hi ch, as r evel ati ons , m aybe funda m ent al t o one’ s r el i gi ous b e lief s. In th e se situ a tio n s, h o w e v e r, it m a yb e d if f icu lt t o det erm i ne w hethera l i t i gant ’ s ci t at i ons t o s cr i ptur e ort o gener al rel i gious con cepts a rt i culat e a “specifi c t enet. ” A l so pr obl emat i c i n t hi s anal y s i s are rel i gi ous t enet s t hatm aybe v i e w e d a s b o th g e n e ra l a n d s p e c if ic

. S e e , e .g ., E

xodus 20 :7 ( “Thou shal tnott ake the name of the L O R D t hyG od i n vai n, f o r th e L O R D w ill n o t h o ld h im g u ilt les s th a t tak e th h is n a m e in v a in .”); E

xodus 20: 12 ( “H onor thy father and t hy m other t hatthy day s m aybe l ong upon t he l and w hi ch the LO R D t hyG od g iveth thee

. ”). F u rth e rm o re , the R F P A d e f in iti o n o f

“ su b sta n tially bur den” a ppear s t o cr eat e s om e t ens i on betw een st at e and fede r al l aw . T he U ni t ed S tat es Supr eme C our thas caut i oned agai ns tm aki ng r el i gi ous i nt erpr et at i ons i n t he F i r s tA m endment c o n te x t. S e e , e .g ., Sm ith , 4 9 4 U .S . at 8 8 7 (“ R e p e a ted lya n d in m anydi ffe r entcont ext s , w e have w arned thatcour t s m u st not pr es um e t o det erm i ne the pl ace of a par t i cul ar bel i ef i n a r el i gi on o r the p laus ibil ityo f a reli g iou s claim

. ”); id

. at 886- 87 ( “I ti s no m or e appr opr i at e for j udges t o det erm i ne t he ‘ centr al i t y ’ of73 re lig io u s b e lief

s b e f o re a p p ly in g a ‘c o m p e lli n g in ter e st’ te st in t h e f r e e e x e r c i s e f

i e l d , t h a n i twou l d b e f

o rt h e m t o d e t e r m i ne t he ‘ i m por t ance ’ of i deas befor e appl y i ng t he ‘ com pel l i ng in ter e st’ te st in th e f

re e sp e e c h f

ield .”); Thom as v. R evi ew B d. of the I ndi ana E m

pl oym ent

Sec. D i v. , 450 U

. S. 707, 7 1 5 (1981) (“ C o u rt s s h o u ld n o t u n d e rt a k e to d is s e c t r e lig io u s b e lie f s . . . beca us e [the bel i ever ’ s ] bel i efs ar e notar t i cul at ed w ith the cl ar i ty an d pr eci s i on thata more s ophi s t i cat ed per s on m i ght e m p lo y .”); i d. at716 ( “C our t s ar e notarbi t er s of s cr i ptur al i nt erpr et at i on. ”)

. A ddi t i onal l y , the R el i gi o u s L and U s e and I ns t i tu t i o n a l i zed Per s ons A ct( “R L U I PA ”) , 42 U

. S. C

. §§ 2000cc t o 2000cc- 5, “does not perm i t a cour t t o det erm i ne w hethert he b e lie f o r p ra c tic e in q u e s tio n i s ‘ c o m p e lle d b y , o r c e n tr a l to , a s y s t em of r el i gi ous bel i ef. ’ ” W as hi ngt on v. K l em , 497 F. 3d 272, 2 7 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( q u o tin g 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 c c -5 (7 )( A ))

. N ev erthe less, the P en n sy lv an ia G en era l A ssem b ly ’s statu toryd ef

init ion o f “ su b stan ti all yb u rde n ” a p p ea rs t o req u ir e c o u rt s to in q u ir e in to , i ntera lia , w h e th e r a n a c tiv ityis f u n d a m e n tal to a p e rso n ’s r e li g io n o r w h e th e r a p e rso n is c o m p e lle d to v io la te a s p e c if ic te n e t o f

th e irre lig io u s f

a ith

. See 71 Pa. St at
. A nn. § 2403 ( defi ni ng s ubs t ant i al l y bu rde n as “an a g e n c ya c tio n w h ich

. . . [d ]e n ies a p e rso n a re a so n a b le oppor tuni t yt o engage i n act i vi t i es w hi ch ar e fundament al t o t he per so n ’ s r el i gi on [orc] om pel s conductorexpr es s i on w hi chA s not ed, i n R i dley Pa rk th e P e n n sy lv a n ia C o m m o n w e a lth 42 C our texami ned the thi r d defi ni t i on of “subs t ant i al l ybur den” – “deni es a per s on a r eas onabl e opportuni t y t o engage i n act i vi t i es w hi ch ar e funda m ent al t o t he per s on’ s r el i gi on” – and c oncl uded t hat w hi l e day car e “a i ded i n carr y i ng outt he C hur ch' s r el i gi ous m is s io n , [ it] is n o t a f

u n d a m e n ta l r e lig io u s a c tiv ity o f a c h u rc h .” R i dley Pa rk , 920 A

. 2d at 960. “Forexampl e, m i ni s t er i ng t o t he sic k c a n f

lo w f r o m a r e lig io u s m iss io n , b u t itis n o t a fundament al r el i gi ous act i vi t yof a c hur ch bec aus e a hos pi t al m aybe bui l tt o s at i s fythatm i s s i on. ” I d. 74 v io lates a sp ec ifi c ten et of a p erso n ’s reli g iou s fa ith

. ”). 42 A rg u a b ly, a v io latio n o f a g e n e ra l ten e t m ig h t su b sta n tially bur den one’ s r el i gi ous fai t h. B utthat w as n otw hatthe P en n sy lvan ia G en era l A ssem b lyp rosc ri b ed

. T h e statuto ry l ang uag e shi ft s t he burden of est abli shi ng a com pell i ng i nter est and l eas tr es t r i ct i ve means t o th e stat e act oronl yaft erthe vi ol at i on of a s peci fi c t enet , w hi ch mustm ean s om ethi ng d if f e re n t f r o m a g e n e ra l ten e t. A s n o ted , the d ilem m a is es peci al l ys t r i ki ng beca us e, i n t he vi ew of the bel i ever , the vi ol at i on of a gener al t enetm ayveryw el l s ubs t ant i al l ybur den o n e ’s re lig io u s f

a ith

. N evertheles s, given the norm al usage of the t erm , itis di ffi cul t t o s ee thatPar ent s have c i t ed a sp e c ifi c ten e t th a t w o u ld pr ohi bi t r epor t i ng r equi r ement s and di s cr et i onarys chool di s t r i ct r evi ew of thei rchi l dr en’ s educa t i onal pr ogr es s . I ns t ead, they refer ence g eneral , b ut nonethel ess i m po rt ant, rel i gious t enets ,A lthou gh i ti s not ent i rel ycl ear, I underst and P arent s’ 43 ar gum entt o m ean thatthe natur al cons equenc e of t hei ras s ert ed s peci fi c t eneti s t hatt he s t at e h as n o j ur i s di ct i on overhom es c h o o lin g . 75 s e e , e .g ., Luke 2 0 :25 (“T h en ren d er to C ae sar the thing s tha t are C aesar ’ s , and t o G od t he thi ngs t hatar e G od’ s . ”) ; 2 Ti m othy 2 :1 5 (“ B e d ili g e n t to p re se n t y o u rse lf a p p r o v e d to G o d .”), to a s s e rt th a t lo c a l sc h o o l d istric ts ha v e n o a u th o rity to c o n d u c t a li m ite d re v iew o f th eir ch il d ren ’s ed u ca ti o n al pro g ress. In a d d iti o n , u n d e r R F P A ’s f o u rth d e f

in iti o n o f

“ su b sta n tially b u rd e n ,” a p a rtym u st e sta b lish a n e x u s b e tw e e n th e sp e c if ic t enetand the compel l ed vi ol at i on, a nexus thatPar ent s have not es t abl i s hed her e. F urtherm ore, t he incon si st encies i n P arent s’ com plai nts , depos i t i ons , br i efs and appe l l at e or al ar gum ents ugges tt he di ffi cul t yi n i dent i fy i ng a s peci fi c t enet ( as oppos ed t o a gene r al t enet ) and i t s at t endantcons equenc es . I n t hei rcompl ai nt s , br i efs to th e d is tr ic t co u rt, an d so m e d e p o sitio n tes tim o n y , P a re n ts as s er t ed a “s peci fi c t enet ” thatt he s t at e “l acks t he j ur i s di ct i on” over t hei r chi l dr en’ s educa t i on, i

. e. , t hat no l evel of st at e r evi ew w oul d be perm i s s i bl e. See P a re n ts B r. O p p ’n to D e f.’s M o t. 43 S u m m . J. at 9 -1 0 , A p r. 1 4 , 2 0 0 6

. B u t a t o ra l ar g u m e n t, P a re n ts im p li ed that their asse rt ed “tenet ” mig h t al low n o n -discre ti o n ary re v ie w o f

th e irh o m e e d u c a t i o n p ro g ra m s . See a l so P a re n ts R epl yB r . at8 ( “Par ent s do notcont end thatt he governm entm ay n o t est ab li sh an y stan d ard s to g o v ern h o m e e d u ca ti o n . R athe r,A s not ed, t hos e fa ct or s i ncl ude, but ar e not l i m i t ed t o: “( 1) 44 T he occ as i on and nec es s i t yfo r the s t atut e. ( 2) T he c irc u m sta n c e s u n d e r w h ich it w a s e n a c ted . (3 ) T h e m isc h ief to b e r e me d i e d

. ( 4 ) T h e o b j e c tt o b e a t t a i n e d

. ( 5 ) T h e f o r me rl a w, i f any , i ncludi ng otherst atutes up on t he sam e or si m i l ar s ubj ect s. ( 6) T he cons equenc es of a pa r t i cul ari nt erpr etati on. ( 7) T he cont empora neous l egi s l at i ve hi s t ory . ( 8) L egi s l at i ve and 76 t he Par ent s ’ cor e obj ect i on . . . is tha tthei rr el i gi ous bel i efs f o rb id th e m f

ro m su b m itt in g th e ir re lig io u s e d u c a tio n o f th e ir chi l dr en t o t he di s cr et i onary rev i ew of a gove r nm ent al offi ci al

. ”)

. Y eti t is p robl emat i c w hetherthi s i nt erpr et at i on of

“ n o n -d isc re tio n a ry ” re v iew w o u ld a m o u n t to a n yre v iew a t all. B as ed upon the pl ai n l anguage o f th e R FPA , Par ent s have fai l ed t o pr ove bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hatt heyhave b e e n c o m p e lled o r w ill lik e ly b e c o m p e lled to v io late a sp e c if ic t enetof thei rr el i gi ous fai t h. A ccord i ngl y , Par ent s cannot s u s t a i n t h e i rc a u s e o f

a c t i o n u n d e rth e P e n n s y l v a n i a RF P A. III

. E ven fi ndi ng t he t erm “s peci fi c t enet ” i n t he R FPA t o be ambi guous , the d eci s i on w oul d be the s ame. A s not ed, t he p u rp o se o f sta tu to ryin terp re tatio n “ is to a sc e rta in a n d e f f e c tu a te th e in te n tio n o f

th e G e n e ra l A s s e m b ly.” 1 P a . C o n s . S ta t. § 1 9 2 1 (a). U n d er se cti o n 1 9 2 1 (c), w h en a statute’s w o rds a re ambi guous , t he i nt ent i on of the G en era l A s s embl y“maybe ascer t ai ned ” bycon si deri ng an arr ayof f act ors. 44a d m in istra tiv e in terp re tatio n s o f su c h sta tu te.” 1 P a . C o n s. S tat. § 1 9 2 1 (c). 77 T he hi stor i cal backgr ound and l egi s l at i ve hi s t oryof P e n n s y lv a n ia’ s R F P A p lac e s it in c o n tex t an d a ss ists in i nt erpr et i ng t he s t atut e. M uch o f t hi s depends on t he d e v e lo p m e n t o f

f e d e ra l F irst A m e n d m e n t ju risp ru d e n c e a n d its i nfl uence on Penns y l vani a l aw . Pr i ort o 1990, l egi s l at i on and governm entr egul at i on bur deni ng the fre e exe r ci s e of r el i gi on w as s ubj ectt o t he Sh erbertte s t. See She r ber tv. V er ner , 3 74 U

. S

. 398 ( 1963)

. U nderthi s rul e, i f the governm ent subst anti al l ybu rdened a person ’s con st i tuti on al free exerci se r i ghts, t hen i tw as r equi r ed t o j us t i fyt he bur den w i t h a compel l i ng s t at e i nt er es t and w i t h pr oof t hat t he l eas tr es t r i ct i ve m e a n s w a s e m p lo y e d

. I d. a t 4 0 2 -0 4

. See a l

so Ji m my Sw ag

ga rt Mi nis tr i es v. B d. of

E qual iz at ion of

C al i f or ni a. , 493 U

. S. 378, 3 8 4

- 8 5 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ( “ Ourc a s e s h a v e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t‘ t h e fr ee exer ci s e i nqui r yask s w hethergovernm enthas pl ace d a s ubs t ant i al bur den on t he obs ervat i on of a centr al reli g i ous bel i ef orpr act i ce a nd, i f so, w hether a compel l i ng governm ent al i nt er es t j us t i fi es t he bur den. ’ ” ( quot i ng Hern a n d ez v . C o m m ’r , 4 9 0 U

. S

. 6 8 0 , 6 9 9 (19 8 9 )))

. In 1 99 0, t he S up rem e C ou rtheld that the F ree Ex erci se C l aus e di d not pr ohi bi t enfor cement of a neutr al l aw of gene r al a p p li c a b i lity su p p o rt e d b ya ra tio n a l b a s is

. E m p loy m e n t D iv ., D e p t. of Hu m a n R e s. o

f O re g o n v . Sm ith , 494 U

. S. 872, 890 ( 1990)

. T he C our tconcl ud ed thatthe s t at e coul d deny78 unempl oym en t benef

i t s due t o w or k- r el at ed mi s conductbas ed upon an empl oy ee’ s r el i gi ous l y m ot i vat ed i nges t i on and us e of a drug; s peci fi cal l y , i n t hatcas e, the ce r emoni al us e o f pey ot e. I d. D ecl ining to a ppl ythe Sh erbertb alan cing test , the C o u rt not ed t hat “the r i ght of fr ee exer ci s e does not reli ev e an i ndi vi dual of the obl i gat i on t o compl yw i t h a ‘ val i d and neutr al l aw of gener al appl i cabi l i t y on t he gr ound t hat t h e law pr o s cr i bes ( orpr es cr i bes ) conductthathi s r el i gi on pr es cr i bes ( or pr os cr i bes )

. ’ ” I

d. at879 ( quot i ng U

ni t ed St at es v. Lee , 45 5 U. S. 2 5 2 , 2 6 3 n .3 (1 9 8 2 ))

. T h u s , Sm ith and i t s pr ogeny“es t abl i s h the general propos i t i on t hata l aw t hati s neutr al and of ge ner al appl i cabi l i t yneed not be j us t i fi ed by a com pel l i ng governm ent al i nt er es teven i f the l aw has the i nci dent al eff ect of bur deni ng a par t i cul ar r el i gi ous pr act i ce. ” C h u rc h o f th e L u ku m i B a b a lu A ye, I nc. v. Hi al eah , 508 U

. S. 520, 531 ( 1993) ( ci t i ng Sm ith ). T he Sm ith C o u rt n o ted th a t re lig io u s e x e m p tio n s, w h ile notcons t i tut i onal l yr equi r ed, coul d be cr ea ted t hr ough t he p o litic a l p ro c e s s . Sm ith , 4 9 4 U .S . at 8 9 0 (c iti n g se v e ra l sta te s t atut es m aki ng “an e xcept i on t o thei rdrug l aw s fors acr ament al pey ot e us e”)

. I n 1993, C ongr es s acc ept ed the C our t ’ s i nvi t at i on b yen ac ti n g the R eli g iou s F ree d o m R esto rati o n A ct (“R F R A ”), 107 St at
. 1488, 42 U

. S. C

. §§ 2000bb to 2000bb- 4 ( amended 2000 )

. Congr e s s s ou gh t t o r e s t or e t he c ompe l l i ng i nt e r e st t est ar t i cul at ed i n Sh erbertand Wis c o n s i n v . Yode r , 4 06 U

. S. 205 ( 1972) , “and t o guar ant ee i t s appl i cat i on i n al l cas es w her e fr ee e x e rc is e o f

re lig io n is s u b s ta n tia lly b u rd e n e d

. ” 4 2 U .S .C . § 2000bb. A ppl i cabl e t o “al l Feder al and S t at e l aw , ” P ub. L

. N o.A tt he t i m e of e nactm enti n 1993, “G overn m en t” w as 45 defi ned as “a bra nch, depart m ent , agenc y , i ns t rum ent al i t y , and offi ci al ( or ot her per s on act i ng under col or of l aw ) of t he U ni t ed St at es , a St at e, ora s ubdi visi o n o f a S t at e. ” Pub. L

. N o. 103- 141, § 5, 107 St at
. 14 8 8 , 1 4 8 9 ( 1993)

. A s amended,

“ G o v e r n m e n t ” i s d e f

i n e d a s “ a b r a n c h , d e p a r t m e n t , a g e n c y, i ns t rum ent al i t y , and offi ci al ( orotherper s on act i ng undercol or o f l a w) o f t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s , o ro f a c o v e r e d e n t i t y . ” 4 2 U. S

. C. § 2000bb- 2( 1)

. “C over ed ent i t y m eans t he D i s t r i ctof C ol um bi a, t he C om m onw eal t h of Puer t o R ico, and e ach t err i t oryand pos s es s i on of the U ni t ed St at es . ” I d. § 2 0 0 0 b b -2 (2 ). R FR A cont inu es to b e enf or ced a gai ns tthe fe der al 46 g o v ern m en t. S e e G o n za les v . O C e n tro Esp irita B e n e fice n te U ni ao do V

egetal , 5 4 6 U .S . 4 1 8 (2 0 0 6 ) (a p p ly in g R F R A to reg u l at i ons byt he fe der al governm entunderthe C ontr ol l ed S u b stan ce s A ct). 79 103- 141, § 6 , 107 St at
. 1488, 1489 ( 1993) , R FR A pr ohi bi t ed b o th th e f

e d e ra l an d sta te g o v e rn m e n ts f ro m “ su b sta n tially 45 bur den[i ng] a per s on’ s exer ci s e of r el i gi on” except t hr ough the l eas tr es t r i ct i ve means of furt her i ng a comp ell ing i nt er es t
. 42 U. S

. C. § 2 0 0 0 b b

- 1

. I n 1 9 9 7 , t h e S u p r e me Co u r t s t r u c k d o wn R FR A as appl ied to t he s t at es beca us e R FR A exce eded the 46 s cope of C ongr es s ’ enfor cementpow erunder se cti on 5 of the F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t. B oer ne v. P

. F

. F l or es , 521 U

. S. 507, 5 3 6 (1 9 9 7 ). R F R A lac k e d a “ c o n g ru e n c e a n d p ro p o rtio n a lity betw een the i nj ur yt o be pr event ed orr emedi ed a n d the m eansSee A ri z . R e v . S ta t. A n n . § § 4 1 -1 4 9 3 ; C o n n . G e n . S ta t. § 47 52- 571b; Fl a. St at
. § 761. 01 t o 761. 05; I daho C ode A nn. §§ 73- 401 t o 73- 404; 775 I l l

. C om p. S tat
. 3 5 /1 t o 35/ 99; M o. A nn. St at
. §§ 1. 302 & 1. 307; N

. M

. St at
. §§ 28- 22- 1 t o 28- 22- 5; O kl a. St at
. t i t
. 51 §§ 251 t o 2 5 8 ; R

. I

. G en. L aw s §§ 42- 80. 1- 1 t o 42- 80. 1- 4; S. C

. C ode A nn. §§ 1- 32- 10 t o 1- 32- 60; T ex. C i v. Pr ac. & R em. C ode A nn. §§ 110. 001 t o 110. 012; V a. C ode A nn. §§ 57- 1 t o 5 7 -2.02; U t ah C ode A nn. §§ 63L

- 5- 101 t o 63L

- 5- 403; see al so A l a . Cons t
. A r tI , § 3

. 01. The Pe nn s y l va ni a RFPA beca me e f

f e c t i v e Dec e mbe r 9 , 2 0 0 2

. M i s s o u r i , Ut a h and V ir g in ia p a s s e d le g is la tio n a f te r 2 0 0 2

. 80 adopt ed t o t hatend. ” I

d. at520, 529- 36. I n par t a r eac t i on t o C i t

y of B oer ne , C ongr es s enac t ed the Re l i g i o u s La n d Us e a n dI n s t i tu t i o n a l i z e d P e r s o n s Ac t , 4 2 U. S

. C. §§ 20 00 cc t o 2 00 0cc-5, w hich a d dress es onlyl and use regul at i on s and the rel i gious ri gh t s o f i nst i tuti on al i zed p ers on s. I d. §§ 2000cc, 2000cc- 1. R L U I PA pr ohi bi t s bot h s t at e and fede r al governm ent s fr om i m pos i ng a “s ubs t ant i al bur den” on th e re lig io u s e x e rc ise o f a n in stitu tio n a lize d p e rso n u n le s s it is t he l eas tr es t r i ct i ve mea n s of furt her i ng a compel l i ng governm ent al i nt er es t
. 42 U

. S. C

. § 2000cc- 1. A l s o, s ever al s t at es i n addit i on t o Penns y l vani a pas s ed thei row n r el i gi ous fr eedom r es t or at i on orpr ot ect i on l egi s l at i on. 47 A l t hough t her e ar e di ffe r ence s among t he var i ous fede r al a nd st at e rel i gious prot ect i on st atutes , m ostcon t ai n, atth e ir cor e, t he s ame fundam ent al s t ructur e and purpos e. T heyAl a b a ma a n d Con n e c t i c u t d o n o t mod i f y “ b u r d e n . ” A l a. 48 C o n st. A rtI, § 3

. 0 1 (“G o v ern m en t sha ll n o t bu rde n a p erso n ’s fr eedom of r el i gi on . . . . ”) ; C onn. G en. St at
. § 52- 571b ( “The stat e . . . sh all n o t b u rde n a p erso n ’s e x erc ise o f re li g ion

. . . . ”). M i s s our i , N ew M exi co, and R hode I s l and pr ohi bi tthe governm entfr om “r es t r i ct [i ng] a pe rs on’ s fr ee e xer ci s e of reli g ion

. ” M o . A n n . S tat
. § 1

. 3 0 2 ; N

. M

. S tat
. § § 2 8 -22 -3; R

. I. G e n . L a w s § § 4 2 -8 0 .1 -3

. 81 r ecogni ze thatneutr al l aw s of gene r al appl i cabi l i t ym aybur den reli g iou s ex erc ise as sig n ifi ca n tl yas law s in ten d ed to interfe re w ith reli g iou s ex erc ise. T h e f ed era l st atutes, P en n sy lv a n ia ’s R FPA , and a maj or i t y of t he s t at e s t atut es al s o acknow l edge the governm entneed not j us t i fy everyact i on havi ng s om e ef fec ton r e l i g i o u s e x e r c i s e . U n d e rt h o s e s t a tu t e s , o n l y s ubs tant i al bur dens t r i gger hei ght ened sc rut i ny . R FPA ’ s fourdefi ni t i ons 48 o f “ su b sta n tiallyb u rd e n ” e m p h a siz e th e im p o rta n c e o f th is th re s h o ld

. See 7 1 P a. S tat
. A n n . § 2 4 0 3 (“ s ig n ific a n tly c o n st r a in s o r in h ib its” ; “ s igni f i cant l y c u rt a ils ” ; “ d e n ie s . . . a re a s o n a b le o p p o rt u n ity to e n g a g e in a c tiv itie s . . . f undam ental t o t he per s on’ s r el i gi on”; “vi ol at es a s peci f i c t enet o f a p erso n ’s re lig io u s f

a ith .” ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). I n ourm od ern r egul at orys t at e, vi r tual l yal l l egi s l at i on ( i ncl udi ng neutr al l aw s of gene r al appl icab il i t y ) i m pos es an i nci dent al bur den ats om e l evel bypl aci ng i ndi r ectcos t s on an i ndi vi dual ’ s act i vi t y . R ecogni zi ng t hi s , l egi s l atur es have s ought a bal ance betw een pr ot ect i ng free exe r ci s e of r el i gi on andT o i l l us t r at e, fort he purp o ses o f R L U I PA , w e r ecogni ze 49 t hata “s ubs t ant i al bur den” e xi s t s w her e: 1) a fol l ow er is for ced t o choos e betw een fol l ow i ng t he pr ece pt s of hi s rel i gi on and f o rf e iti n g b enef

i t s otherw i se gene ral l ya v a ilab le to ot heri nm at es ver s us abandoni ng one of the pr ece pt s of hi s r el i gi on i n o rde r to r ece i ve a benef i t ; O R 2) the governm entput s s ubs t ant i al pr es s ur e on an a dher entt o s ubs t ant i al l ym odi fy his beh aviorand t o v i olat e his beli efs. W as hi ngt on v. K l em , 497 F. 3d 272, 280 ( 3d C i r . 2007)

. U nder t he Fl or i da R el i gi ous Fr eedom R es t or at i on A ct, “a s ubs t ant i al b u rd e n o n th e f

re e e x e rc ise o f re lig io n is o n e th a t eith e r c o m p e ls t he r el i gi ous adher entt o engage i n conductt hathi s r el i gi on forbi ds orforbi ds hi m t o engage i n con d u ct th athi s r el i gi on r equi r es . ” W

ar ner v. B o ca R at on , 887 So. 2d 1023, 1033 ( Fl a. 2004)

. “A pl ai nt i ff w ho cl ai m s thata governm ent al r egul at i on cons t i tut es a s ubs t ant i al bur den m us t ‘ pr ove thata governm ent al r egul at or y m echa ni s m bur dens t he adher ent ’ s pr act i ce of hi s or her r el i gi on by pr es s ur i ng hi m or hert o comm i tan ac tforbi dden b yth e re lig io n o r b yp re v e n tin g h im o r h e r f ro m e n g a g in g in c o n d u c t o r h a v in g a re lig io u s e x p e rie n c e w h ich th e f a ith m andat es . ’ ” I

d. at 10 3 5 (cit ati o n s o m itted).

82 p re se rv in g a n e f

f e c tiv e p o lice p o w e r. T h e f e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t, Penns y l vani a, a nd s ever al ot hers t at es have i dent i fi ed a s ubs t ant i al it yt hr es hol d as the t i ppi ng poi ntforr equi r i ng hei ght ened j u sti fi cat i ons for gover nm ent al act i on. 4983 Fur t herm or e, byr equi r i ng pr oof of a “s ubs t ant i al bur den” by cl earand convi nci ng evi dence , Penns y l vani a appea r s t o have s et a higher threshol d than other r el i gious re st orat i on st atutes
. C om pa re 71 Pa. St at
. A nn. §§ 2404, 2405 ( r equi r i ng “cl earand c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e ” o f s u b s ta n tia l b u rd e n ), w ith 4 2 U .S .C . § 2000cc- 2( b) ( “pl ai nt i ff s hal l beart he bur d en o f per s uas i on on w hethert he l aw ( i ncl udi ng a r egul at i on) orgovernm entpr act i ce

. . . su b stan ti all yb u rde n s the p lai n ti ff ’s ex erc ise o f re li g ion ”), W ar ner , 887 So. 2d at1034 ( “[T ] he pl ai nt i ff be ar s t he i ni t i al bur den of s how i ng t hata r egul at i on cons t i tut es a s ubs t ant i al b u rde n . . . . ”), D iggs v. Snyder , 7 7 5 N .E .2 d 4 0 , 4 5 (Ill. A p p . C t. 200 2 ) ( r e q u i r i n g , u n d e rth e I l l i n o i s Re l i g i o u s Fr e e dom R estor at i on A ct , pl ai nt i ff “ t o m ake a t hr es hol d s how i ng” of su b stan ti al bu rde n ). A s n o ted, P ar ent s have notci t ed a s peci fi c t enett hat w oul d pr eventadher ence t o t he rep o r t i ng r equi r ement s or p roh ibit d iscreti o n ary S ch o o l D istri ct re v iew o f th eir ch il d ren ’s educat i onal pr ogr es s . I ns t ead, t heyr efe r ence gener al , but i m por t ant , r el i gi ous t enet s t o s uppor t their cl ai m t hatl ocal s chool di s t r i ct s have no a uthor i t yt o conductl i m i t ed r evi ew of t hei r hom e educa t i on pr ogr ams. Such a br oad i nt erpr et at i on of t he t erm “s peci fi c t enet ” w oul d appea rt o r ead “ s peci fi c” outof th e s ta tu te
. T he occ as i on, nece s s i t y , and purpos e of t he R FPA do not su p p o rt a f

in d in g , b yc lea r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e , tha t P a re n ts a re c o m p e lled o r w ill lik e lyb e c o m p e lled to v io late a sp e c if ic84 t enetof thei rr el i gi ous fai t h. A ccor di ngly , Par ent s cannot p r e v a i l o n t h e i rc a u s e o f a c t i o n u n d e rth e P e n n s y l v a n i a RF P A.