## Facts

- The Falmouth School Committee adopted an HIV/AIDS prevention condom-availability program for junior high and high school students.
- At the high school, students could obtain free condoms from the nurse and could purchase condoms from vending machines in school lavatories; counseling was available but not required.
- At the junior high, condoms were available only through the nurse and only after mandatory counseling that included HIV/AIDS information.
- The program presented abstinence as the only completely effective method to prevent sexually transmitted infection while also providing information about condom use.
- The program did not require parental consent, did not offer an opt-out allowing parents to bar their children from access, and did not require parental notice when condoms were requested or obtained.
- Parents and students opposed to the program claimed it conveyed approval of premarital sex contrary to their religious beliefs.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Massachusetts civil-rights law for declaratory and injunctive relief; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether a voluntary school condom-availability program, implemented without parental opt-out or parental notification, violated parents’ Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in directing the upbringing of their children and rights of familial privacy.
2. Whether the program imposed a substantial burden on free exercise of religion under the First Amendment (and analogous state constitutional protections) by allegedly endorsing premarital sex.
3. Whether the program was sufficiently coercive, despite being voluntary, to constitute unconstitutional state interference with parental rights or religious exercise.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed summary judgment for the school committee and other defendants.
- The court held the program did not unconstitutionally interfere with parental rights or familial privacy because participation was voluntary and noncoercive.
- The court held the program did not substantially burden free exercise of religion because it did not compel participation or religiously objectionable conduct, and any conflicting message was insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.
- The court declined to require parental opt-out, consent, or notification as a constitutional prerequisite for the program.

## Legal Principles

- Public school authorities have broad discretion to implement educational and health programs; judicial intervention is limited absent a demonstrated constitutional violation.
- Parental liberty interests in child-rearing and familial privacy, while fundamental, do not include a general right to veto public school programs or to prevent children’s exposure to ideas inconsistent with parental beliefs.
- A parental-rights or familial-privacy claim requires a coercive governmental intrusion; a voluntary program that students may refuse, with no penalty for nonparticipation, generally does not meet that standard.
- A free-exercise claim requires a substantial burden on religious practice; voluntary access to services or incidental exposure to policies inconsistent with religious beliefs is insufficient where participation is not compelled.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the school district’s voluntary condom-availability program against parental-rights and free-exercise challenges, reasoning that the Constitution does not require parental opt-out or notification where the program is noncoercive and students remain free to decline participation.


Curtis v. Sch. Comm. of Falmouth, 420 Mass. 749, 652 N.E.2d 580 (1995)