California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials v. Torlakson, No. 19-15607 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Individual parents of Hindu children in the California public schools and CAPEEM filed suit against the State Department of Education and State Board of Education, claiming discrimination against the Hindu religion in the content of the History-Social Science Standards and Framework for sixth and seventh graders.
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that the challenged content of the Standards and Framework, and process leading up to the Framework's adoption, did not disparage or otherwise express hostility to Hinduism in violation of the Constitution. The panel held that the district court properly dismissed the Equal Protection claims where the district court correctly characterized plaintiffs' claims as an indirect attack on curricula; Monteiro v. Tempe Union School District, 158 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 1998), bars plaintiffs' claims; and plaintiffs' dislike of challenged content does not constitute a violation of Equal Protection, absent a plausible allegation of discriminatory policy or intent.
In regard to plaintiffs' claims under the Free Exercise clause, the panel held that the complaint did not allege interference with plaintiffs' exercise of their religion under the Constitution as required for a viable Free Exercise claim under Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017), and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2252 (2020). Furthermore, there are no expressions of hostility here as there was in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 138 S.Ct. 1719 (2018).
In regard to the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim, the panel held that parents have the right to choose the educational forum, but not what takes place inside the school. The panel stated that parents do not have a due process right to interfere with the curriculum, discipline, hours of instruction, or the nature of any other curricular or extracurricular activities. Finally, in regard to the First Amendment Establishment clause claims, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to consider plaintiffs' expert report in its analysis; the Standards and Framework do not call for the teaching of biblical events or figures as historical fact, thereby implicitly endorsing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; and none of plaintiffs' characterizations of the Hinduism materials as disparaging was supported by an objective reading of those materials.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all but one of plaintiffs’ claims and its summary judgment in favor of defendants on the remaining claim in an action brought by parents of Hindu children in the California public schools who alleged discrimination against the Hindu religion in the content of the History-Social Science Standards and Framework for sixth and seventh graders. The complaint focused on a handful of provisions in the 1998 Standards and the 2016 Framework and alleged these curriculum materials carried a hostile and denigrating message about the origins of Hinduism when compared with similar provisions relating to other religions of the world. Addressing Appellants’ Equal Protection claims that the Standards and Framework discriminate against Hinduism, the panel held that the district court correctly characterized the challenge as an indirect attack on curricula. The panel determined that the allegations in the complaint contained no reference to State Board policy, nor did the allegations describe any materials used in the classroom from which such a policy could be inferred. Citing Monteiro v. Tempe Union School District, 158 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 1998), the panel noted that, at least absent evidence of unlawful intentional discrimination, parents are not entitled to bring Equal Protection claims challenging curriculum content. CAPEEM V. TORLAKSON 5 Addressing Appellants’ claims under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, the panel held that the complaint did not allege interference with Appellants’ exercise of their religion under the Constitution as required for a viable Free Exercise claim under Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017), and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2252 (2020). The panel held that offensive content that does not penalize, interfere with, or otherwise burden religious exercise does not violate Free Exercise rights. Addressing the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim, the panel held that, with respect to education, parents have the right to choose the educational forum, but not what takes place inside the school. Parents therefore do not have a due process right to interfere with the curriculum, discipline, hours of instruction, or the nature of any other curricular or extracurricular activities. Finally, addressing the First Amendment Establishment clause claims, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding an expert report offered by plaintiffs to explain how, from the perspective of a person knowledgeable in the field of religious history, the Standards and Framework express a negative view of Hinduism. The panel held that it must evaluate the Standards and Framework from the perspective of an objective, reasonable observer, and not that of an academic who is an expert in the field. The panel concluded that the Standards and Framework did not call for the teaching of biblical events or figures as historical fact, thereby implicitly endorsing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The panel further concluded that none of Appellants’ characterizations of the Hinduism materials as disparaging was supported by an objective reading of those materials. 6 CAPEEM V. TORLAKSON Concurring, Judge Bress stated that the majority opinion correctly held that there was no basis in this record to conclude that the defendants discriminated against Hinduism. The majority also properly rejected the plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause challenge. Judge Bress noted that some portions of the majority opinion discussing plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim drew upon Ninth Circuit precedent that was based on Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and that the list of situations in which the Supreme Court has effectively repudiated the Lemon test, either by expressly declining to apply the test or simply ignoring it, has grown quite long. Judge Bress nevertheless stated that regardless, whether under a Lemon-based test or an Establishment Clause analysis more appropriately grounded in the history and traditions of this country, there was no establishment of religion here.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.