The court also rejected plaintiffs' claim that a "hybrid right" calling for stricter scrutiny was involved. Rejecting the federal constitutional claims, the court remanded the state law claim to state court.Act 169 is a neutral law of general applicability. It neither targets religious practice nor selectively imposes burdens on religiously motivated conduct. Instead, it imposes the same requirements on parents who home-school for secular reasons as on parents who do so for religious reasons. Furthermore, nothing in the record suggests Commonwealth school officials discriminate against religiously motivated home education programs (e.g., denying approval of home education programs because they include faith-based curriculum materials).... The Commonwealth has a legitimate interest in ensuring children taught under home education programs are achieving minimum educational standards and are demonstrating sustained progress in their educational program.
In a concurring opinion, Chief Judge Scirica reached the merits of the state Religious Freedom Protection Act claim and found that: "Based upon the plain language of the RFPA, Parents have failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that they have been compelled or will likely be compelled to violate a specific tenet of their religious faith."
The Home School Legal Defense Association that represented the parents said it is reviewing the decision and considering an appeal. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]