## Facts

- Lexington, Massachusetts elementary teachers used picture books depicting same-sex couples and same-sex marriage in lessons on family diversity and anti-bullying.
- The books included *Who’s in a Family?* (varied family structures, including same-sex parents), *Molly’s Family* (child with two mothers), and *King & King* (a prince marries another prince, with a wedding kiss illustration).
- Parents of children in kindergarten through second grade alleged sincerely held religious beliefs that view homosexual conduct and same-sex marriage as immoral.
- The parents objected that exposure to the books without advance notice and without an exemption option conflicted with their religious beliefs and interfered with directing their children’s religious upbringing.
- The parents requested prior notice and the ability to excuse their children from classroom presentations or discussions involving homosexuality or same-sex marriage; the school district refused.
- The parents did not seek to bar the district from using the books generally; they challenged only the refusal to provide notice and opt-outs for young children.
- The parents sued in federal district court alleging violations of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process parental rights and familial privacy.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and the First Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a public elementary school’s use of books depicting same-sex families, without parental notice and an opt-out, violates parents’ or students’ Free Exercise rights when students are not required to affirm or renounce religious beliefs.
2. Whether refusal to provide notice and an opt-out from such classroom exposure violates substantive due process rights of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children, including familial privacy.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed dismissal of all federal claims.
- The court held there was no Free Exercise violation because the curriculum did not coerce religious practice, compel affirmation of belief, or punish religious exercise; it exposed students to ideas.
- The court held there was no substantive due process violation because parents have no federal constitutional right to dictate public school curricula or demand exemptions from instruction that conflicts with their beliefs.
- The court declined to recognize a federal constitutional right to parental notice and opt-out from classroom exposure to nonjudgmental depictions of same-sex relationships.

## Legal Principles

- Free Exercise protections are triggered by governmental coercion, compulsion, or penalties affecting religious belief or practice; mere exposure to ideas contrary to a family’s faith is insufficient.
- Public schools are not constitutionally required to shield students from potentially religiously offensive ideas when students are not required to agree with, affirm, or participate in endorsing those ideas.
- The Fourteenth Amendment protects parental decisionmaking about care, custody, and control, but does not grant a right to tailor public school programs to individual preferences or veto curricular content.
- A substantive due process claim in the curricular context requires a direct and substantial interference with parental rights; ordinary curricular exposure to contested ideas does not meet that standard.
- Public schools may pursue legitimate pedagogical interests in teaching respect for diverse family structures and reducing harassment and bullying.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that a public school’s presentation of books portraying same-sex families, without providing parental notice or opt-out for young students, did not violate the Free Exercise Clause or substantive due process parental rights because the school neither coerced religious conduct nor substantially interfered with parents’ ability to teach their faith outside school, and the Constitution does not authorize parents to control public school curricular content.


Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008)