Hiester v. School District of Philadelphia, (ED PA, Aug. 21, 2026), is a 41-page opinion covering complex allegations of competing anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish harassment by high school students and high school administrators. The Pennsylvania federal district court describes the basic claims as follows:
The crux of Plaintiffs’ allegations is that the School District and its officials established a Muslim Prayer Room at one of its high schools, the Academy at Palumbo..... Plaintiffs claim that the room was restricted to Muslim students, and that they were unfairly disciplined by the Defendants for entering the Prayer Room because they are not Muslim. The Plaintiffs also allege that the School District caused, and then failed to respond to, their harassment by other Palumbo students. They allege that this harassment became so severe that they were forced to relocate out of the school district at significant personal expense.
Plaintiff M. Danowitz decided to visit his old friends at Palumbo. Danowitz, who is Jewish, had attended Palumbo the previous school year and remained friendly with Palumbo students including Plaintiff John Hiester.... He and Hiester arrived at Palumbo together on the morning of June 11, entering the building through the main entrance....
Once inside, Hiester and Danowitz joined Plaintiff Meru Parmar and several other friends in the school’s computer lab.... The group ... then made their way to the library ... where an open door marked “Quiet Room” and decorated with a makeshift Palestinian flag caught their attention..... Believing that the room was open to all students, first Danowitz—then later Hiester and Parmar—went inside....
Inside the Quiet Room, the Boys found several female students seated at a table using their laptops, as well as Islamic religious decorations and Arabic signage adorning the walls.... One large sign welcomed people to the “Prayer Room” and wished them a “Happy Ramadan”.... A laminated placard pinned to the wall contained “guidelines” from The Academy at Palumbo Muslim Student Association for use of the “Quiet Room.”...
The Boys sat on the opposite side of the room.... Danowitz said a short Jewish prayer in Hebrew..... The prayer elicited laughter from the female students and a short exchange during which the girls questioned why the Boys were in the room.... Danowitz responded that he had a First Amendment right to pray and was a proud Zionist; he also sang a short section of Am Yisroel Chai (“The People of Israel Live”) and did a handstand.... As he left the room, he removed a laminated placard from the wall, setting it on the floor....
News of the event spread, often in exaggerated fashion, accusing the boys of trashing the Prayer Room. Students using social media, and teachers, fanned the flames. An investigation concluded that the boys committed harassment.
Plaintiff families sued. A number of their claims were dismissed, some for lack of standing. However, several claims survived. The court said in part:
... [T]he Court finds it plausible that a reasonable jury could find that the School District Officials violated the Establishment Clause by disciplining Student Plaintiffs for entering the Prayer Room....
Plaintiffs adequately plead that the School District Officials deprived them of due process. This Court finds that the right to due process for suspended students is so clearly established that the School District Officials are not entitled to qualified immunity....
... Student Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Defendants Thompson, Stamps, and Gordon suspended them for entering the Muslim Prayer Room as non-Muslims.... They also plausibly allege that they were suspended to pacify Palumbo students’ outrage.... In this respect, the defendants’ actions resemble the fourth hallmark of religious establishment: “the government restrict[ing] political participation by dissenters.”...
The Plaintiffs also plausibly allege that Defendants ... used public resources to create the Prayer Room and prevent non-Muslim students from accessing it.... In this respect, Defendants’ actions resemble the fifth hallmark of religious establishment: “the government provid[ing] financial support for the established church, often in a way that prefer[s] the established denomination over other churches.”...
Palumbo students accused Student Plaintiffs, among other things, of “exclaiming that they are openly Zionist” and “destroy[ing] a sacred space during one of the most brutal genocides [referring to Palestine].”.... But unlike Judaism, Zionism is not a protected characteristic under Title VI.... However vehement or crass, Palumbo students’ disagreement with Student Plaintiffs’ perceived political beliefs doesn’t constitute antisemitic harassment....