Source: http://cornellilj.org/courts-shall-not-rule-on-homeschool-alone-romeike-v-holder-and-the-intersection-of-fundamental-rights-and-asylum/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:50:31+00:00

Document:
The devoutly Christian Romeike family entered the United States in 2008 from Germany, which requires all children to attend public or state-approved private schools. The Romeikes feared that the public school curriculum in Germany would “influence [the children] against Christian values.” Prior to leaving Germany, the Romeikes had pursued a path of civil disobedience, homeschooling their children in the face of fines and even police intervention to force their children to attend school. Over the course of their protest, they racked up 7,000 euros in fines, the equivalent of around $9,000.
The family’s case eventually reached the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2013 as Romeike v. Holder. Here, the court denied the Romeikes’ petition for asylum on the ground that the family had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the application of the German law, which bans homeschooling, turns on prohibited classifications or animus based on any prohibited ground. The Supreme Court of the United States, on March 3, 2014, declined to grant certiorari to review the Sixth Circuit’s ruling. The Obama administration has stood against the family as well, asking federal courts to side with Germany and its law since it is enforced for all families, not solely the Romeikes.
The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari and the Obama administration’s stance have sparked outrage among the Christian community in Tennessee, where the Romeike family has received wide support, including the backing of their district congressman Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.). Rallying around the Romeikes, the community even “vowed to engage in civil disobedience” if the Obama administration initiates deportation proceedings against the family. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, however, decided against deportation and instead put the family on “indefinite deferred action status,” essentially allowing the Romeikes to stay in the United States indefinitely.
Further discussing parents’ freedoms, the Supreme Court held in Pierce v. Society of Sisters that this liberty includes the parental right “to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.” The challenged act in Pierce required every parent and guardian in custody of a child between eight and sixteen years to send the child to a public school. In striking this act down, the Court acknowledged that while states have an important interest in ensuring education for children, parents’ constitutional rights limit the ways by which the state may achieve that interest. With this precedent set, U.S. courts have unquestioningly recognized parents’ protected right to homeschool their children.
In Germany, on the other hand, mandatory school attendance has been in place since 1918. Germany’s constitution promotes total State control over education. The European Court of Human Rights even affirmed in 2006 that the interests of the State trump the rights of parents to educate their children, stating that parents may not refuse the right to education of a child on the basis of their convictions.
While the Romeikes complain further that the German law “violates their fundamental rights and various international standards and thus constitutes persecution regardless of whether it is selectively enforced,” the law on asylum in the United States provides refuge to individuals persecuted on account of a protected ground. The court importantly notes that the United States “has not opened its doors to every victim of unfair treatment, even treatment that our laws do not allow.” Although the United States protects parents’ right to make decisions regarding their children’s education, this does not mean that a contrary law in another country establishes persecution on any ground.
I think this is a part of the Obama administration’s overall campaign to crush religious freedom in this country. . . . I have little doubt that if this family had been of some other faith that the decision would have never been appealed in the first place. They would have let this family stay. . . . It’s a denial of the essence of America. The Pilgrims left England to go to Holland to seek religious freedom. They came here to seek religious freedom and parental rights for their children. Had this administration been waiting at Plymouth Rock, they would’ve told the Pilgrims to go back home.
Romeike v. Holder and the Intersection of Fundamental Rights and Asylum, 2 Cornell Int’l L.J. Online 60 (2014).
* Yujin Chun is a J.D. candidate at Cornell Law School, where she is the Cornell International Law Journal’s Associate on European Affairs and the Career Chair of the Briggs Society of International Law. She holds a B.A. in English from Duke University.
 Romeike v. Holder, 718 F.3d 528, 530 (6th Cir. 2013) cert. denied, 13-471, 2014 WL 801174 (U.S. Mar. 3, 2014) (quoting Administrative Record 478).
 Id. at 530 (quoting Administrative Record 478).
 Ben Waldron, Home Schooling German Family Allowed to Stay in US, ABC News (Mar. 5, 2014), http://abcnews.go.com/US/home-schooling-german-family-allowed-stay-us/story?id=22788876.
 Romeike, 718 F.3d at 530.
 Id at 535; see also Bill Mears, Homeschooling Family Loses Asylum Appeal, CNN (updated Mar. 3, 2014), http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/03/politics/court-homeschool-asylum/.
 Cheryl Wetzstein, U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Hear German Family’s Home-School Case, The Washington Times (Mar. 3, 2014), http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/3/us-supreme-court-declines-german-home-school-case/?page=all.
 Jason Devaney, Victory for Homeschool Family Facing Deportation, Newsmax (Mar. 4, 2014), http://www.newsmax.com/US/homeschool-germany-family-asylum/2014/03/04/id/556072/. See also Todd Starnes, Christians Vow Civil Disobedience if Home-School Family is Deported, Townhall (Mar. 4, 2014), http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2014/03/04/christians-vow-civil-disobedience-if-homeschool-family-is-deported-n1804004/page/full.
 Todd Starnes, Christians Vow Civil Disobedience if Home-School Family is Deported, supra note 13.
 Jason Devaney, Victory for Homeschool Family Facing Deportation, supra note 13.
 See generally Todd Starnes, Christians Vow Civil Disobedience if Home-School Family is Deported, supra note 13. See also Jason Devaney, Victory for Homeschool Family Facing Deportation, supra note 13; Todd Starnes, Christians Outraged Over Team Obama’s Assault on German Homeschool Family, Fox News (Mar. 4, 2014), http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/04/christians-outraged-over-team-obama-assault-on-german-homeschool-family/.
 Todd Starnes, Team Obama Wins Fight to Have Christina Home-School Family Deported, Fox News (Mar. 3, 2014), http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/03/team-obama-wins-fight-to-have-christian-home-school-family-deported/.
 U.S. Const. amends. 5, 14.
 See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719-20 (1997); see also Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301-02 (1993).
 Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2009); see also Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923) (recognizing the of parents to control the education of their own children).
 See, e.g., Peterson v. Minidoka Cnty. Sch. Dist., 118 F.3d 1351, 1358 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding a school district’s adverse employment action based on public school principal’s decision to homeschool his children to have violated principal’s constitutional rights).
 Ben Waldron, Home Schooling German Family Allowed to Stay in US, supra note 5.
 See Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Grundgesetz] [GG] [Basic Law], May 23, 1949, BGBl. I (Ger.), art. 6 (Marriage and the family), art. 7 (School System), art. 13 (Inviolability of the home) (evincing the tensions surrounding education between parents and the German government).
 Konrad v. Germany, App. No. 35504/03, 8 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Sep. 11, 2006).
 Romeike, 718 F.3d at 531-32.
 Romeike, 718 F.3d at 534 (emphasis added).
 Todd Starnes, Christians Outraged Over Team Obama’s Assault on German Homeschool Family, supra note 16.

References: in fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 6
 art. 7
 art. 13
 v.