In one of the first cases in Pennsylvania to address the great student masking debate, a federal court has rejected several arguments made by parents seeking to exempt their children from a universal mask requirement imposed on August 31, 2021 by the Pennsylvania Department of Health.

The ruling serves as reminder to school districts of the importance of carefully evaluating and considering such requests — particularly those seeking a religious exemption — on a case-by-case basis before responding.

In Geerlings v. Tredyffrin/Easttown School District (No. 21-CV-4024 E.D.Pa.), a group of parents asked the court to prohibit the school district from enforcing the Department of Health order requiring universal masking in schools. The parents raised three arguments. First, they argued that the order violated their religious beliefs. Second, they argued that the masks were an unapproved medical device and, as a result, could not be required. Third, the parents contested the Department of Health’s legal authority to issue the order. The court rejected all three claims and denied the parents’ request for a temporary restraining order to prohibit the district from enforcing the order.

At the outset, the court addressed the issue of a request for a religious exemption to the order and noted that while the order itself — “Order of the Acting Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Health Directing Face Coverings in School Entities.” — does not provide a religious exemption, that is not controlling. Rather, the court examined the facts of each case to determine if an exemption should be granted. It is important to note that the court did not issue a blanket rule on the issue of a religious exemption to the mask order, but instead went through the facts of each person’s claim. However, some general rules can be gleaned from the court’s analysis.

First, the court noted that the objection must be a religious one and not simply general opposition to mask wearing. Then, the court looked to see if there was some teaching of each claimant’s faith that would support the view that masks are violative of their religious beliefs rather than their personal views that appeared to be largely new as a result of the pandemic. Next, the court found the claimants’ actions regarding the use of face coverings in other contexts, such as when their children played sports, quite telling, undercutting their claims that they had a religious objection. Put another way, it would make little sense that a student’s religious beliefs would prohibit them from wearing a mask at school, but permit them to cover their face for the purpose of playing a sport. Finally, the court found that a generalized concern about potential harm to the body by wearing a mask, a claim raised by some parents, was more a medical view than a religious one. As a result, the court found that each parent failed to establish that having their child wear a mask would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. Having dismissed the various arguments made by the parents, the court found that the parents failed to establish that a religious exemption was warranted.

Second, the court rejected the argument that the mask order violates the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act) on the basis that the masks are an unapproved medical device. The court found that because the district is not manufacturing, marketing or selling masks, it is not governed by the provisions of the FDC Act. In addition, the court found that the FDC Act provides the FDA the power to enforce its provisions and not this group of parents.

Third, the court noted that the parents’ challenge to the legal authority of the Department of Health to issue the order is based upon state law and found that the federal court lacks authority in this context to rule on this issue. The court further noted that it is aware of ongoing litigation in state court over this issue. As a result, the court declined to wade into it.

Finally, the court did not address the issue of exemptions related to medical or disability concerns, noting that the parents in this case did not plead such a claim and that the parents failed to even go through the process created by the district to consider such exemptions.

As a result, it appears that in one court at least, many of the claims parents are presenting to school entities to seek an exemption to the order have been rejected. Whether other courts follow suit remains to be seen.

[View source.]