Judge rules against State College Area School District’s request to dismiss parochial student lawsuit

State College Area School District must defend against a civil rights lawsuit that alleged the district discriminates against parochial school students by not allowing them to participate in extracurricular activities.

Chief U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew Brann rejected Friday the district’s invitation to dismiss the lawsuit, instead finding a religious rights advocacy group adequately alleged the violation of constitutional right.

Permitting students who live within the district who are homeschooled and those who attend charter schools to participate in extracurriculars but denying that opportunity to students at parochial schools could violate the First Amendment’s free exercise clause and the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, Brann wrote in his 25-page ruling.

“Regardless of what reasons some parents may have for sending their children to a non-public school, a religious reason has the same value as a secular reason,” Brann wrote. “If some exemptions are made, a school’s refusal to make a religious one enforces a value judgment preferring secular conduct over religious conduct.”

A district spokesperson declined comment Monday, citing its policy against speaking publicly about ongoing litigation. Religious Rights Foundation of PA attorney Tom Breth said he was “very pleased” with the ruling.

“We were pleased with the court’s legal analysis,” Breth said. “We felt that most recent Supreme Court cases on these issues support the plaintiff’s position, support the fact that we believe the State College school district has acted in a discriminatory manner.”

Taxpaying parents of parochial school students requested the district to allow their children to participate in extracurriculars, but were turned away by the district’s superintendent.

“After carefully considering it, we cannot grant your request to change our longstanding practice of not having private school students participate on our PIAA sports teams. The reason is that the district has ample, and sometimes excess, participation for our teams, so there is no need to expand,” the district’s top administrator wrote in an email to a parent. “Additionally, if we allow private school students to take part, we could be taking away opportunities from SCASD students.”

Breth said the lawsuit goes well beyond just athletics; the district has approved more than 100 extracurriculars.

SCASD defended its position in its request to have the lawsuit tossed out, though it carried little weight with Brann. The district, he wrote, mainly relied on outdated precedents he described as “unhelpful.”

“If SCASD had a policy narrowly tailored to prevent overcrowding of its extracurricular programming, it would not have had the homeschool and charter school exemptions in the first place,” Brann wrote. “SCASD’s regime is therefore not narrowly tailored to achieve its stated interest.”

The district will have an opportunity to further defend its decisions, but Brann wrote its justifications must be “grounded in some fact distinguishing homeschooled and charter-schooled students from parochially schooled students.”

SCASD must respond by Dec. 15.