CLEARY GIACOBBE ALFIERI JACOBS PREVAILS IN A CHALLENGE BY A PARENT IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ON THE INCLUSION OF INSTRUCTION ABOUT ISLAM IN THE MIDDLE SCHOOL SOCIAL STUDIES CURRICULUM UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT 

On December 8, 2025, the United States Supreme Court denied a Petition for Certiorari filed by a parent of a former Chatham Middle School student seeking review of the Third Circuit’s decision affirming the dismissal of her lawsuit against the School District of the Chathams that had alleged a violation of her child’s constitutional rights under a section of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution which prohibits government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” The Complaint filed by Libby Hilsenrath on January 23, 2018 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleged that, during the 2016-2017 school year, the curriculum and materials of the Seventh Grade World Cultures and Geography Middle East and North Africa Unit (“MENA”) promoted or favored the religion of Islam at the expense of Christianity and Judaism.

The District subsequently filed an Answer to Ms. Hilsenrath’s Complaint denying these allegations and at all times denied that its curriculum or any of the materials utilized to teach the students enrolled in the Seventh Grade World Cultures and Geography course had violated any student’s right to be free from religious coercion or parent’s right to raise their children in accordance with their own religious beliefs. Both prior to and during the course of litigation, the District steadfastly maintained, that the curriculum and materials for social studies instruction throughout all grade levels were in compliance with the Board’s policies regarding instruction about religion, with the New Jersey Department of Education’s learning standards that require students to learn about and to “compare and contrast” several world religions by completion of the eighth grade, and most importantly, did not have the primary effect of endorsing, favoring, or advancing any one religion. 

After more than two and a half years of discovery, both parties filed motions for summary judgment on May 8, 2020. On November 12, 2020, the United States District Court Judge Kevin McNulty ruled that the challenged materials did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment under the well-known Lemon v. Kurtzman test. More specifically, the Judge determined that the challenged materials and curriculum which included the study about Islam along with other religions during the year-long seventh grade World Cultures and Geography class had a valid, secular purpose to educate students about the world’s major religions and that the Board did not exceed its educational mandate. The Judge also determined that the curriculum of the course did not, in the context of a larger study of world cultures and geography, convey a message favoring Islam over other religions. Based on these determinations, the Judge granted the District’s motion for summary judgment resulting in a dismissal of the complaint filed by Ms. Hilsenrath in its entirety. 

The Summary Judgment ruling was then appealed to the Third Circuit by Ms. Hilsenrath’s attorneys, Thomas More Law Center and oral argument took place in October 2021. However, due to the United States Supreme Court decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. District, 142 S.Ct. 2407 which was issued on June 27, 2022, and which decision eliminated the use of the Lemon Test and set forth a new “actual coercion” standard by which to evaluate claims involving religion in schools under the First Amendment, the Third Circuit ordered the summary judgment decision vacated and the District Court to consider the issue of the effect that the intervening authority of Kennedy had on Plaintiff’s religion in school claim. 

On October 16, 2023, the District Court entered an Order affirming the grant of Summary Judgment pursuant to the “historical practices and understanding” standard adopted by the Kennedy Court to evaluate present and future claims for violations of the Establishment Clause. Plaintiff again appealed this decision to the Third Circuit. On May 5, 2025, specifically, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling and held that the MENA curriculum did not force students to engage in a formal religious exercise and that the lessons on Islam were appropriately “integrated into the school curriculum as part of an “appropriate study of history, civilization, and comparative religion.” (internal quotations omitted). The Third Circuit also agreed that there was no evidence that anyone from the school engaged in proselytizing, but solely presented Islamic beliefs from the perspective of a third party and for an academic purpose—not a secular one.  

The Supreme Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s Petition for Certiorari and concomitant refusal to review the Third Circuit’s May 5, 2025 decision is a complete vindication of the Board, District Administrators, and its teachers to whom the education of the children living in the School District of the Chathams.

Ruby Kumar-Thompson, Esq. and Matthew J. Giacobbe, Esq. handled the case on behalf of the School District of the Chathams.