Combs v. Home-Center School District
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
540 F.3d 231 (2008)
- Written by Caitlinn Raimo, JD
Facts
Act 169, a Pennsylvania law, permitted parents to satisfy their children’s mandatory education requirement through a homeschool program overseen by their local public school district. Parents electing to homeschool their children were required to maintain a portfolio of materials used, student work, and results of standardized tests and to submit to an annual evaluation of the child’s work. The school districts’ oversight was limited to ensuring the homeschool program satisfied the act’s requirements regarding hours of instruction, subjects taught, and students’ progress; they did not choose or review the materials parents used, nor challenge the evaluators’ assessments of the programs. The parents of six Christian families (plaintiffs) sued the school districts (defendants), contending that the districts’ mandatory oversight of their homeschool programs under Act 169 violated their rights to the free exercise of religion and to control their children’s education and religious upbringing under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, challenging the act both facially and as applied. The parents moved for summary judgment, which the district court denied. The school districts then moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted, finding that Act 169 was a facially neutral law.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.