# Petition — Duro v. District Attorney, Second Judicial District of North Carolina > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_0877%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1984 - **Citation:** 465 U.S. 1006 ## Text , 5” 8 3 = ” 1 9 Office -Supreme Court, U.S. ix k f I i. D if IN THE ' @@ 12 1983 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ALEXANDER L. STEVAS, SRI o wk Xi October Term, 1983. No. 83- PETER DURO, Petitioner, vs. DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT George Daly 101 N. McDowell Street Suite 226 Charlotte, N.C. 28204 Tel: (704) 333-5196 Counsel for Petitioner OF COUNSEL: Norman B. Smith North Carolina Civil Liberties Union Legal Foundation, Inc. 700 Southeastern Building Greensboro, N.C. 27401 Tel: (919) 274-2992 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether North Carolina, which has radically diminished regulation of religious schools because of an announced State policy in favor of religious liberty, and which requires of these schools only that they notify the State that they are in operation, keep pupils in attendance for the same days and hours as do public schools, comply with health and safety requirements and administer periodic standardized tests, has a suffi- ciently weighty interest to allow it to prosecute petitioner for not sending his children to a public or religious school which petitioner's sincere Biblical beliets prohibit him from allowing his children to attend, when petitioner provides a comprehensive academic educa- tion for his children in his home. TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages Petition for Writ of Certiorari - Questions Presented i - Table of Authorities ii - Reported Opinions Below 1 - Ground of Jurisdiction of this Court 1 - Constitutional Provisions and Statutes 1 - Statement of the Case 10 - Argument 18 Appendix Memorandum of Devrision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina A-2 - Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit A-16 Science 504 Lifepac Test of the Alpha Omega Christian Curriculum A-32 Mathematics 805 Lifepac Test of the Alpha Omega Christian Curriculum A-35 ii - Language Arts 502 Lifepac Test of the Alpha Omega Christian Curriculum - Social Studies 702 Lifepac Test o1 the Alpha Omega Christian Curriculum ae. A-40 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Pages Wisconsin vs. Yoder, 16,29; 20. 406 U.S. 205 (1972) ei, .20 State vs..Riddle, 285 S.E.2d 359 (W.Va. 1981) 21 Board of Education vs. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 246-47 (1968) 22 People vs. Turner, 121 Cal. App.2d 861, 263, P.2d 685 (1953) 22 Korematsu vs. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 225 (1944) 25 Meyer vs. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) 27 Pierce vs. Society of Sisters, 265 J.S. 510 (1925) 27 Prince vs. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 156 (1944) ar Constitutional Provisions United States Constitution - First Amendment i North Carolina Constitution - Art. 1, Sec. 13 23 iv Statutory Provisions 28 U.S.C. 1254(1) ae U.8.0. 3943 3) 42 U.S.C. 1983 N. N. N. Oa aa } Since Petitioner's conversion his family has sought no professional medical attention despite suffering sicknesses, broken bones and concussions. In | Petitioner's view Christians who pate ronize medical doctors believe in the Bible only when it suits them and not when it challenges them. 3. Children at the available religious school are taught that water baptism is necessary for salvation. This is contrary to the Bible, which commands in Romans 10:9: "That if thou shall confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Petitioner himself works ina worldly environment to make a living, but believes that the Bible commands that his 12 children not be educated in a worldly environment. "The Bible commands that because they are not qualified to go out and stand up to peer pressure and t like that. And when they are properly trained and they are 17, 18 or 19 years old, then they can go out into the world having proper background and be able *o function in it."° Petitioner and his wife and children presently form a reli- gious enclave, in which the children are nurtured and educated according to the Bible. Since coming to North Carolina Petitioner's wife has taught their child- ren at home regularly every weekday from 8:30 or 9:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m., and for as long thereafter as the children require to finish their work for the day, on all days that the public schools were in session. She has instructed them by means of the Alpha Omega Christian Curriculum, by which the children are taught English, Social Studies, Math, Science, Bible, and other subjects ina largely self-help, workbook style fashion. Petitioner's wife is available to answer 2 Petitioner's Deposition, p. 65, te 8-14, 13 tests. If the children do not sc percent on the test at the end of each cf book they must repeat the en Samples of the Curriculum arcrear at A-32 ff. Petitioner's wife is a regis- tered nurse and has completed one semes- ter of college. Petitioner holds a Master of Science Degree in Education from the State University of New York at Albany and a lifetime New York Public School Teaching Certificate. The Alpha Omega Christian Curriculum is a compre- hensive curriculum which is also employed at the local religious school. The District Court stated that this curri- culum "appear[s] to the Court's unpro- fessional eye to offer instruction in the basic subjects commonly taught in the public schools except that they reflect in some respects a fundamentalist orien- tation as opposed to a scientific or secular orientation." A-7, n.2. In February, 1981, Petitioner was prosecuted in the District Court of Tyrrell County for four counts of vio- lation of N.C.G.S. 115C-378, supra, p. 2, the North Carolina Compulsory Attendance Law. In March, 1981, these 14 prosecutions were quashed for failure tq allege that the statutorily required notice had been given *o Petitioner. See, N.C.G.S. 1150-378, 494, 5. In Aprii, 1981, Petitioner commenced this ‘action in the United States Distric Court, Eastern District of North Caro- lina, seeking a declaratory judgment that the application of the Compulsory Attend- ance Law to him was unconstitutional arid an injunction against its enforcement as to him. Jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C. 1343(3) and 42 J.S.C. 1983 was the applicable substantive law. After dis- covery the case was heard on cross- motions for Summary Judement by The » Chief United States District Judge, Eastern District of North Carolina. On August 20, 1982, the Court issued its Memorandum of Decision, A-2, holding: ‘Honorable Franklin T. Dupree, Jr. that abstention was inappropriate; that Petitioner's refusal to enroll his child- ren in school was sincere and religiously motivated; and that the State's interest was of insufficient weight to overcome Petitioner's religious liberty. This latter holding was largely premised on the 1979 deregulation of religious 15 5 schools, N.C.G.S. 115C-547, et seg., supra, p. 5, whereby the only legal oO | 7] requirements retained for relizi tend "for a period equal to the time which the public school to which the child is assigned shall be in session," N.C.G.S. 115C-378; that the school "maintain annual attend- schools were: that children at ance and disease immunization records" and "be subject to reasonable fire, health and safety inspections by State, county and municipal authorities as required by law," N.C.G.S. 115¢0-548 that the school "administer, at least once in each school year, a nationally standardized test or other nationally standardized equivalent measurement selected by the chief administrative officer of such school, to all students enrolled or regularly attending Grades l, 2, 3, 6 and 9." N.C.G.S. 115C-549. The test records are available for State inspection but the State retains no power to control the curriculum or require teacher competency in religious schools, whatever the test results may be. See, A-6. The State, bereft by its statutes of any argument that quality of education 16 was after 1979 any longer a compelling State interest in North Carolina, asserted to the District Court thact it had a weighty interest in guaranteeing "universal" education. The District Court found this argument to be “hollow,” A-12, because it was without basis in fact. The State having clearly withdrawn any right to control religious schcols, and having vacated the field so thoroughly that a religious school could become merely "a mouthpiece for some religious fanatic,” A-13, did not assert any interest in the universality of education within any rational meaning of the word education. North Carolina religious schools may now quite lezally graduate students who cannot read or add. The State has aoddicated responsibility to provide any "education" for children not enrolled in the public schools. The Circuit Court reversed. The finding of Petitioner's sincerity was not disturbed, A-26, but the State was found to have a sufficient interest in ccom- pulsory education because the safety, testing, etc., requirements were imposed and because assertedly "the welfare of the children is paramount and...their > future well-being mandates attendance at @ public or non-public school." A-=26. The Circuit Court did not mention any evidence in support of its conclusion 2 regarding the welfare of the cnildren. ARGUMENT The Circuit Court has seriously misconstrued Wisconsin vs. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), reading it as a case dependent upon the uniqueness of Amish life rather than as a case about reli- gious liberty. The Circuit Court has also found a compelling interest ina First Amendment case when the State legislature has said that none exists. The Circuit Court has, finally, denied Petitioner his historical right to direct the upbringing of his children. 1. The Circuit Court drew a dis- tinction between Wisconsin vs. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), which it viewed as heavily dependent upon both the unique nature of the Amish community and the fact that Amish parents wished for their children to remain resident in their rural self-sufficient community upon becoming adults, and the present case in which Petitioner does not belong to an 18 established religious community and, it is said, "expects [his children] to te fully integrated and live normally in the modern world upon reaching the age of 18." A-23. This distinction is twice false. Not only is Yoder misinterpreted, but the Circuit Court unfairly twists the intentions of Petitioner so as to maxe them seem different in substance from the intentions of Amish parents. Petitioner in no wise expects his children to "be fully integrated [or] live normally in the modern world." He expects them so live a radical religious Pentecostal life, which is not a "normal," secular ct life. Of course Petitioner, equally wi the Amish, will not have legai control over his children once they become 13 years of age. He testified that when his children become adults, "then they can go out into the world having proper back- ground and be able to function in it.” Petitioner's Deposition, p. 65. But until that time his religion requires that he give them a Biblically literal education. The Circuit Court inter- polated the requirement of "normally" functioning in the world, without having any basis in fact for so doing. It isa 19 holding of Yoder that religious separ2- tism during high school "prepares indivi- duals to be self-reliant and self- sufficient participants in society." 406 U.S. at 221. This holding includes the Amish children that later leave the separatist community. The basic academic education that Petitioner's children are being given prepares them to be evangelical Pentecostals who go into the world to witness their religion, as their parents wish, or to abandon their parents’ religion when “hey become of age and yet make their own way capably in the world. At the least, Petitioner's children will be as well able to cope with modern society as are those Amish children who later choose to leave the separatist community and live in the secular world with an eighth grade education. A review of the Alpha Omega Christian Curriculum which Petitioner's children are learning shows that any of them may become, if they wish, Pente- costal historians, Pentecostal auto mechanics, Pentecostal bankers, Pente- costal ‘ballet dancers, or of course non- Pentecostals of any type. In their final year of English, Petitioner's children 20 will study, inter alia, theories of the origin of language, Chaucer, Hamlet, Goldsmith, Keats and Hopkins. In mathe- matics they will study ordered-pair numbers, probability, cermutations, polynomials, quadrental angles, trigo- nometric equations, etc. Petitioner does not claim that the State may not require that he meet certain standards for home instruction. See, A-14-15. But educa- tion outside the home is neither so venerable nor so prized that it may claim to be the exclusive benchmark of compe- tent citizenship. Abraham Lincoln was able "to participate effectively and intelligently in our open political system," Yoder, 406 J.S. at 221, despite his lack of formal education. Super- vised home education is allowed in other states and countries. See, e.g., State vs. Riddle, 285 S.E.2d 359 (W.Va. 1981); Rev. Stat. Alberta (Canada), Ch. S-3, § 143(1)(a). Only in this century has compulsory education beyond the eighth grade been required. As recently as 1972 six states required only an eighth grade education and Mississippi had no compulsory education law at all. Wisconsin vs. Yoder, 406 U.S. at 226, 21 mn. 15. This Court has stated that a state may refuse to accept home instruc- tion as compliance with compulsory educa- tion statutes, Board of Education vs. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 246-47 (1968), but this remark was made in a non-religion context, see Id., n. 8 (citing People vs. Turner, 121 Cal. App.2d 861, 263, P.2d 685 (1953), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 347 U.S. 972 (1954), a "right to home education" for other than religious reasons case). Petitioner's children may fail to obtain some socializing skills, but making square pegs is not a compelling state interest. To force Petitioner's children to attend public or religious schools would force Petitioner to expose them to teachings that are prohibited by his religion. 2. N.C.G.S. 115C-547 provides: "In conformity with the Consti- tutions of the United States and of North Carolina, it is the public policy of the State in matters of education that 'No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or inter- fere with the rights of con- science,’ or with reiigious liberty and that ‘religion, morality and knowledge being 22 necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind »e-the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'" (emphasis supplied) The quoted words are drawn from the North Carolina Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 13. The statute is a clear state- ment that North Carolina values religious liberty at least as highly as it values academic competence. The Circuit Court, however, somehow found that North Caro- lina had retained a "compelling interest in compulsory education," A-25, despite that the State does virtually nothing to assure that "education" takes place in religious schools. Since North Carolina has given up control of the quality of education in religious schools, it cannot assure that they will educate children at all, in the secular sense of education as teaching skills necessary to function in modern America. Religious schools could, for example, adopt a monastic regimen of fasting, contem- plation and religious study, and give no academic instruction whatever, yet operate in a manner consistent with North Carolina law. The North Carolina General Assembly has decided to allow that possi- 23 bility ({ust as Burma and India have allowed that actuality for centuries). But this being so, compelled exposure to "education" is a hollow claim. What can be compelling about forcing children to attend a school that is not required to educate them? The compelling interest test is essentially a legalistic for- mulation of the general proposition of political philosophy ‘that ultimate necessity finally trumps freedom, and the corollary proposition that ultimate necessity must be carefully separated from rhetoric which claims ultimate necessity but does not demonstrate it by legally and humanly convincing proof. Hysteria, self-interest, fear of change, hard-headedness, attachment to privilege, and simple inertia all have a way of staking a claim to the "compelling" necessity of their position. The com- pelling interest test exists to prevent their triumph except in cases of provable ultimate necessity. If the enemy is truly at our shores the government may do whatever is necessary, including abridgement of liberty, to assure that it will survive and be able to later guaran- tee liberties again. But history teaches 24 that the trumpet of necessity is often blown prematurely. See, Korematsu vs. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 225 (1944) (Roberts, J., dissenting). That seems to be the case here. The Circuit Court has found a compelling interest on behalf of North Carolina despite that it is quite possible that Petitioner's children will learn less of the three Rs at school than at home. Although the Circuit Court did not overturn the District Court's finding that Petitioner was sincerely and reli- giously opposed to sending his children to the available schools, it was obvi- ously ill disposed toward Petitioner. The Circuit Court never mentions the central fact that Petitioner's religious beliefs are drawn directly from the Bible. Rather, the Circuit Court gra- tuitously commenced its opinion with the observation that other Pentecostals do not believe as Petitioner does. A-17. This is an irrelevancy. Petitioner's religion is based on The Bible, not on Pentecostal mores. 4, Finally, the Circuit Court : relied on "the welfare of the Duro child- ren." A-25, n.3. The Circuit Court 25 found that North Carolina had guaranteed children the "right to an education that will prepare them for their future." Even if this generality is correct as a matter of State law, which is not clear, the North Carolina General Assembly, by enacting N.C.G.S. 115-547 to-554, has indicated that that "future" could be a religious rather than an academic future. Also, in Wisconsin vs. Yoder, Justice Douglas, the lone dissenter, would have held that the State had a legitimate interest "in seeking to develop the latent talents of its children [and] in seeking'to prepare them for the lifestyle that they may later choose..." Id. at 240. The other members of the Court rejected this proposition and solved ‘she case as a contest between the religious rights of the parents and the educational rights of the State. The Circuit Court has, despite Justice Douglas's lack of success, again imported the rights of the children into the equation. If the Court grants this Petition, Petitioner res- pectfully urges that counsel or amicus be appointed to speak for the interests of his children; but the present law appears 26 to be that courts should not consider the interests of the chiidren in preparing now for a lifestyle they may later choose. For now they live within their parents’ lifestyle. See, Meyer vs. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce vs. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Prince vs. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944). There is no hint in the record that the children are being maltreated. They are just being given a strict religious upbringing. Respectfully submitted, this the / = day of October, 1983. = (Aeoy di aQ, George Daly ' Suite 226, One North McDowell 101 North McDowell Street Charlotte, N.C. 28204 Telephone: (704) 333-5196 Counsel for Petitioner OF COUNSEL: Norman B. Smith North Carolina Civil Liberties Union Legal Foundation, Inc. ~*700 Southeastern Building Greensboro, N.C. 27401 Telephone: (919) 274-2992 27 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG CERTIFICATE OF “” SERVICE I, George Daly, a member of the bar of this Court, do on my oath certify that I personally deposited 40 copies of the foregoing Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Post Office, Charlotte, North Carolina, on October 10, 1983, with first class postage prepaid, properly addressed to Clerk, United States Supreme Court, 1 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C., 20543, and also three copies hereof to Andrew A. Vanore, etc., attorney for Respondent. I know of my own knowledge that this mailing took place on October 10, 1983, having personally done it. George Daly ¢@ Suite 226, One North MeDowb11 101 North McDowell Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28204 Telephone: (704) 333-5196 Attorney for Petitioner 28 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG VERIFICATION I, Kay Thomas, a Notary Public of the State of North Carolina, County of Mecklenburg do hereby verify that George Daly appeared before me, this the llth day of October, 1983, and executed the foregoing Certificate of Service. This the llth day of October, 1983. a ae Notary Public My’ Commission Expires: *T - eo ZS 29 | - - 2 2. 2 te medical treatment for injuries or ill- --- = % —s 2 nesses. Although many of his objections = a a } ie | - _ = to the available schools relate t secular matte I } 2n7 ~ + 2 —— Bidle and God command him not to seex w 7 Pa] = — ’ counsel from any person that's not ao ’ : 2 , | sodiy, which in our case would be - you a an 2 } 2 a | - — know -adhering to the principles that the Bitle teaches. And that would be very difficult receiving that kind of counsel 1 any Kind of public institution." Duro Deposition at 49. Thus, he believes that he would incur the wrath of God if he sent his children to either the public schools or the Cabin Swamp Christian chool. Complaint 46. He does not lieve that no acceptable school could A-4 by the State w.C.G6.8. $2215 ments made in tutory provisi ames od schools, Education Tho a existent. ~ - Assembly has - operation of -~ - removed from administer attendance at N.C.G. § 115 school is subj ay oO. sal . of law relatin §§ 115c-554, Assembly sta of the state tion...’ te - _ ~ + tnat [fnJo human author A-5 ave OW ed the provision N.C i N.C.Gs Jeneral io nal policy of educa- 44 Ave 7% » ww 1070 wr See ure relisious liberty. 1979 N.C. Sess. Laws ie ~ 23 - . rr @e > ce_cho Ce 24/939 C dified av Wee Uede § 115C-547 -- Led ‘a 72 au t+ - (quoting North Carolina Constitution § 13). The Board cannot im | a awe be E Q t? Dp Dm te - prescribe curricula, teacher certifica- tion requirements, teacher-student ry | eal -~ 2+ oes eae ia * ZenAH r ~ -aYr is 7 -M~ eee SCMNOCl. imerezrore, -_-¥ - S) rfi- 2 ane “~jAan “TAME Pan lin 7 : PfAnm CLENTL asics etVe Vad Var O na iaw ior a Weaker ntd tt ¢e¢-4 +a ++anA — n tom moe wsivd * vO take attendance and ever aa | ~ Pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 115C-550 and 5538, nonpublic schools must select and administer a competency test to its eleventh graders and must determine what score must be achieved on the test by a student in order to graduate. As the statute is written, however, the school has complete control over the selection of the test and the qualifying score and therefore may graduate even students reading on a second-grade level. The state has retained the authority to inspect the test results but not any authority to act in light of the results. A-6 which are the ordinary goal of education, the state acc Ss school as sufficient in fulfilling any interest sne state has. In challenging she compulsory school attendance law, plaintiff contends that his rig to freely exercise his reli- gious b fs is infringed and that there is no compelling state interest being -~ ° ~ ~ — instru n his children receive at home 3 - ~ | ~ 6 - _ is at least equal to and pernaps perior the Cabin Swamp schools. Sa jo ee bg The Duro children are taught through the means of a programmed self- explanatory curriculum calied the Alpha Omega Christian Curriculum, which is also used at the Cabin Swamp School. Although Mr. Duro is a certified teacher, he is not involved in the instruction, which is carried out and supervised by his wife. Mrs. Duro is not ’certified as a teacher. The instruction is scheduled for the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. every weekday. Samples of the instruc- tional materials are attached to the affidavit of Carol Duro. They appear to the court's unprofessional eye to offer instruction in the basic subjects common- ly taught in the public schools except that they reflect in some respects a fun- damentalist orientation as opposed to a scientific or secular orientation. A-7 case. No proceedings are pending in state court against plaintif tion is not required under Younger v Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971 h has been informed *h h state law a 9 - 2 =} +4 2 ‘ As instruction might qualify for purposes of qd e 52 — ~ - 4 : ? pending state cases not volving the ff > Duros. foreover, tne Duros state =nat them from sen r available schools out als from administering in t required standardized tes question of whether their home would be considered a "school" under state law if they attempted to comply with the minimal requirements of state law is not even 3 Plaintiff does, however, have a case or controversy, since defendant has indicated that he will prosecute plain- tiff for violating N.C.G.S. § 115C-378 in the future if complaints are receive A-8 which if resolved mignt avoid the neces- sity of constitutional decision. See, of Texas vs. a e.g., Railroad Commission of Company, 312 U.S. 496 (1941). ly, the court has determined ention would be inappropriate. hen is whether O eo ss ct religious belief rinsed by enforcement of the compulsory attensaance law. Wisconsin vs. Yoder, 406 U.S. 235, 214 (1972). Defen- ¢ f contemporary secular values, beliefs which under Yoder do not qualify as "religious." as a factual matter defendant overlocxs the degree to which plaintiff bases nis beliefs in scripture nh hat ne believes that he ffer God's wrath if he personally will si C 1 to instruction by subjects his non-believers. More importantly, however, defendant's position neglects the recent decision in Thomas vs. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707 (1981), where the Court clearly stated that "it is not within the A-9 judicial function and judicial compe- tence" to determine the validity of a religious belief. The cours must only determine whether, in this instance, plaintiff has refused to s ren to school "because of anh ‘b 3 or ty ed w q y te fe) conviction that such...was forbidden his religion." Id. at 716. I to the court that Peter Durs is actin out of an honest conviction that obed ence to the compulsory attendance law forbidden by his religion. Although court is not greatly sympaznetic with beliefs, they are not "so bizarre, so clearly nonreligious in motiva Ss tion, as not to be entitied to protection under the Free Exercise Clause." Id. at 715 The court must therefore turn t second question, which is whether the state's interest in the statute is o "sufficient magnitude to override the interest claiming protection under the Free Exercise Clause." Wisconsin vs. Yoder, supra, 406 U.S. at 214. In the abstract, the state has a compelling interest in compulsory school attendance as a means of assuring that all cnildren in the state receive a basic education sufficient to prepare them for the duties A-10 of citizenship, for oc: political proc ° we sufficient and eee po society. Wisconsin vs. Yo segs supra, 406 U.S. at 221. When a to insure that educational standards are » te is attempting being met, it may refuse "to accept instruction at nome as compliance with compulsory education statutes." Board of Education vs. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 246-47 (1968). Moreover, the s “ "may require e schools, if it ompulsory-attendance laws, be at institutions which provide minimum hours of instruction under the supervision of teachers of specific training and covering certain prescribed subjects." Lanner vs. Wimmer, 662 £ 1349, 1353 (10th Cir. 1981). Cf., Windsor Park Baptist Church vs. Arkansas Activities Association, 658 F.2d 618 (8th Oc Cir. 1981). In addition, "courts are... ° ill-equipped determine the ‘necessity’ of discrete aspects of a State's program of compulsory education. This should Suggest that courts must move with great circumspection in performing the sensi- tive and delicate task of weighing a State's legitimate social concern when A-11l faced with religious claims for from generally applicatle educaticnal VY requirements.” Wisconsin vs. supra, 406 U.S. at 235. Here, however, the State of North Carolina has abdicated its n the quality of the educavi students in nonpublic scho "the rights of conscience.” N.C.3.S. § 115c-547. Claiming no interest in the quality of education received by the + children of | th Carolina wao attend nonpublic schools Ss asserts that it has a compelling interest in guaranteeing t i versal." Inde Constitution p have a right t tion, and it is the duty guard and maintain that right." article I, § 15. The state protects that right by operating a system of free public schools which all children may attend. But the argument that there is a compell- ing interest in universal education when the required education may be devoid of even minimal quality is correctly charac- terized by the plaintiff as "hollow." The state hopes that "the collective A-12 concerns, demands and pre parents of private school ct! insure that the nonpublic an education which incl = [oF mental skills necessary f sufficient and productiv society and for teen in its political process. The state "does not permit home instruction because [it] has no mechanism by which to assure that children in a home witn their parents are provided access to any education whatso- lemental Brief at 4, But the same is true of the state's ever." Defendant's Supp relationship with the nonpublic schools; whether or not children are provided a minimum education is entirely dependent upon the parents' interest and motiva- tion, since a school may exist which provides no education at all but is rather a mere caretaker or a mouthpiece for some religious fanatic. + 4 Defendant also attempts to rely on United States vs. Lee, U.S. ‘ 102 S.Ct. 1051 (1982), for the proposi- tion that the position accorded religious liberty by the General Assembly has no bearing on the case. Lee, however, con- cerned a claim of religious exemption to Social Security taxes based upon the fact A-13 ate has so drastically under- cut its asserted interest in the univer- sality of education that the court cannot conclude that what survives is compell- ing. If the state makes no attempt to maintain minimal educational standards in nonpublic schools, its requirement that a b] school te attended is little more than u bee empty ccer arly when those eing relatively the comrulsory attendance law of North applied to this plaintiff. The court wishes to make very jy a Oo ct oO wD Carolina may clear the narrow scope of this holding. First, it has no bearing on the state's authority to enforce the Se d, it should not be read as limiting the state's authority to law against any 5 oy other rerson. impose minimum standards on nonpublic schools or to develop a mechanism per- 4 (continued) that some other class of persons enjoyed an exemption. The court held that the statutory exemption, applying to a different situation, did not strengthen plaintiff's position. Id. at 1054-55. Here, in contrast, the sta- tutory language is an explicit statement of policy rather than a rule applying to a discrete situation. A-14 and cation “Aw 4» ! tS oO ® Sf 4 OO $4 ”» w - Ga a "” Gao) a A ie cS @ i” i. eS ae, " te om eo @ 4 » 12 B&B. 3S Oo eA So & a c & @D a ” D ed QO OU wx a 33 G4 Oo. .O1-Gb- @ Ss ie) . S wa. & ww So @ Cc mm wo editions tt ew oon >» G&S O 0 & a © Bem oe Oe 3% S& @© MN as Se od Cow Www @ » go fs «4 toad ‘Se Ks ch -. £C SD @ 2B et ” So 6.8. 0 -o 2 oa. oO - 8 Su - at ~ G&G w.- «4 . Ai, BO] YD Nn @W a» oo oO G4 tH Su Ga fj ce nN Wp wd x nn oO W ee ew eRe a) © QQ Sa — i. oO f£ » o» ®” Oo ” » . B* ond > >» ” cme oS OF SB. ft Bos -t = 2B. 2d nm» @D WG DY» Pp oO W ®w n af fA Ft one of HEA ¢ Oo OF et nwt Hh A O Suit OD Nn Nn WOH BODBGDBxHt YO ™ E: «4 Ga ” $4 O wy pe o @® oOo G o oo re) eo © 62H > 2.0 SB Sa ord 5b bb» © 3 at & @ wo © oO Dx " a fc 3 a & «& a wA wo & 80 oO 2 © 8 @ -s se oC %~S * oO woe oo © ” ; =~ = a ot) a Gc & CO a x eee ee ee wo oO n t0 O Ww een ra “ Oo » wp oO = _ GeO -O las" Ore » bo eo cg ag & & G& © oO ®o ooncnkoOowxn ®W ee = fr oO Ee, oe > ss € Sx ®© bY et + K@ | Ox) 0. 28s he OG ~~ @ 0 ® 80 fae © no «t & . “ ote ce eo. a, ee ek a OO ee ee ~ $4 — oO Oo: c » 4 re) +H a 0 © ECE ECE @ S oO} fio » » %& ada » >: @ -) Se SO we he SO fae ee et Oe ay en = = ee ® © & “ re) a | oO o .0) £2, > OS nn & +£ a | ig e OO bp © D2 EE BS : CG a EW ee a o Meek 8 es oe ee o & oOo vo DB ” ® | cy " ~4 Aa ” ” a at - = ) n . os ’ ‘> » Ss OO Pie ke . So > be) 6a. 2 Sa Oo hth bw a > E @ © & ? t Vie pee ad Uk. ‘ Se wh (ty Se ~4 oO 3. 3 Oo WM wt Ss wt aia«« et i -4 t{ wt @ 4 t : "oe yi, ae ~~ eS. & iw $4 ar Gey Sh ead o eee Wad i lel Tee OR ee Sa ies sa PY ae © BD Ge Bi a9 om «> fa a 1 t ‘ 5 oe ‘ , « ~ Se on gar g® . @ 2° Q8 st es Mat he. i ry ~ 3 at . ~ i ‘ ‘ o> a 4 eo we 8 4 vO Bie ce SP “4 yer et Se 4 - Rae De. oe Sc ‘ o¢ ow ££ & S$. “Su ae af ® em-t w" - tf) = Cc re = © > Se , oY ae eee | = S > ove. $x cc oO eX FE S 6 Qo Oo am wi S. © —4 OwHt ON BD - 8 of r “\ ‘» ) t a i‘. Ce ) i” a «’ Se 3 4” 4 “) = Ob . ef m” ” a S. cS 4 t? : 4 et wt of o wp 1) §=$e $+ at ce. \ be, o3 - te ot gC 5S fi @ we ae oe Ts oe ee bee OE one a - Sai Or a - oO ~3 & £ ©@ ee Hawt 2 FE -& wg »~ et @ o ££ » a XS 'oF o oO O wt eo xs “weit & & £32 €& mw © ms © EB VU Gf CO ea @ & nop, @ GD Ss Te ‘epee ag Chee er: tgs sO.) S10. 26 ek ON Eee oa £&£ @ © © & vy ° Oo bas Cae te ae ee Oo oS - aoe ee eo co » @ & Sj nove © A-18 method of instruction used at Cabin Swamp tian Se2ncrtl. Duro himself does not ’ o @ } 4 ° rticipate in she instruction of the e n uary 10, 1981, Duro was charged with fsur counts of violation of rtn Carolina compulsory school tendance law, which requires that children between the ages of seven and sixteen must attend school. N.C.G@.S. § 115c-378. gapshed, the warrants were Quasned because of technical defects. Duro filed this action on April 2, 1981, allecing that cne statute in question, as it applied to nim, violated the First and Fourteenth amer.dments to the United States Constitution tcecause his religious beliefs prohibit him from sending his children to ¢ or mossublic school. On August 20, 135-, the district court granted Duro's motion for summary judg- ment. From that decision, the D.A. appeals. it. The district court relied heavily . Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), in nolding that North Carolina's compulsory scnool attendance law was unconstitutional, as it applied to Duro, upon Wisconsin v HS |e A-19 AA ewe anys } 1 j In Yoder, the Court held that there are {a= ~ 4 ' two issues wnhicn must be considered in - e3Ai a=: a a 5s. « i a cases such as this: (1) whether a sincere a? @ ’ - | ” 4 f v9 relizious belief exists, and (2) whether - ~- - So ~ - the state's interest in compulsory educa- . -) First Amendment. The Court recognized ‘ that senerally a state has a compelling interest in compulsory education, in order to "prepare citizens to participate effectively and intelligently in our olitical system" and to "prepare indivie Qa Oo ~ w ' s wa ct oO ie) iD 1a) iw t- rg ! | tu «. t- . pee pee | ct $o res | 2 w wo ~ rr ' ais POL at awe ranttatrantec 4 = at , "” A 29 9 ae Bees -1 9" Seve wep Gels 1n socie ye Id. at 297) The ( av a ae ase - oO a | om p 3 J fp a for «ct on wo ne) arents regarding ringing of their children on the district court found that Duro, like the parents in Yoder, expressed a ° sincere religious velieri/ that school i/ According to the district court, Duro based his belief in the scripture. Further, the court noted that Duro acted "out of an nonest conviction that obedi- A-20 . 2 ~ ~ 7... @ court, in reaching its conclusion, rectly interoreted and arrli cverride 2 - f + ta a -- t.Oon of nor « -~---~- educati ‘eo 2 di = - {eh - ; - ‘ - - - - asree with J.strict court that the 3 qualit; in nonpubli: scnools. N continues t2 impo requirements . - > Pacis ee take enersy fro a. producer y =: roi the sun >. first-order ge ee 2. helos rot dead consumer ~ {= _ orzanisms ¢. second-order - I= “As | 3% -2 food is mostl consumer 2 a . animal ad. decomposer Ss take water in i 2 ~ ~- - through its roots os +2 plant eater 2 #5 = ieee | fungus \ mee predator Sgr B.X 6 rabbit % a= I _ aw? In Aa helps return minerals to the earth ° = = 10. a tall srass Write true or false points). ll. true The web of life includes plants. 12. true Chemicals are brought into plants as part of the mineral 13. true 14. true 15.Xfalse cycle. Photosynthesis the balance of Water evaporat water cycle. Animal bodies b making enerzy. e A-32 is important to nature. s during the urn up water in more a. needed water Ae nawks fewer 7. 2 lived. than mice same c. adove the fewer io number of P| w 0 sn » $4 aw co gS 9 Yo w O (e) » “a 0 wt Ga od ore S OG EO von an 2.0 Od ” $2, e o os ov aw = +} ot O LY NW G&G loss of appetite d. A-33 Name Peter Duro Date Nov. 3, 1951 Seore 100% MATHEMATICS 805: LIFEPAC TEST Complete this item (each answer, 3 points). 1. The rules for multiplying ecmnon fractions are to find the numerator, a. multiply the numerators; to find the denominator, b. multiply set me . ran home. “atch she correct phrases to the words. rlace she letter on the blank line if front of the word (each answer, 2 points). 25. 4 autnor a. Call It ‘courage 27. . island b. Kivi 23. a Polynesiansc. nondescript dog 23. 3 book d. Armstrens Sperry 39. fe) albatross ¢. main idzas cy pA lagoon f. Hikueru 32. e Uri S. contraccion 33. 2 topic h. fishermen 34. J compound i. small ocdy of 35. ia terror water connected to 35. I diamante 2 larger cne j- word made from re CWO W child As a A-39 ords ina Kind K. three-year old hurricane of poem SOCIAL STUDIES 702 LIFEPAC TEST Name Tony Duro 4 Date October 1, 1951 Score 96% SOCIAL STUDIES 702: LIFEFac TEST Write true or false (each answer, point) 1. true The seasons depend uron the angle of the earth's: axis and the earth's position in its orbit. --X true In July the earth 2s closer to to sun than it is in May. 3. false The truest represernsaticon of the earth is a polar crojece tion. 4, true Mt. Everest, the hizhest moun- tain in the world, is located in Asia. 5. true An interrupted-arez projection shows the least distortion in land areas. 6. true Physical geography is the study of the physical features of the earth. 7 true Most of the land masses in the world are in the Northern Hemisphere. A=-'10 8. false The ctrcumference of the earth “rom t2le to pole is 24,902 files, 9. false The srsrins equinox is March 22. 10. true Tne dividing lines between the ZSastern Hemisphere and Western Hemisrnere are the prime meri- dian 2nd the 180th meridian. ll. true Tne shortest day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere is Decemter 21. 12. true Leap sear occurs every four rears. 13.Xfalse ‘Mountains nave the highest temperatures of any landform. 14. true Plains are able to support more reople than other land- rorms. 15. true An imasinary line through the earth's center is called an axis. Complete the following sentences using the word list (each answer, 3 points). cultural geograrcny Sierra Nevada physical geograchny Allegheny Appalachians plateaus Rockies mountains climatology plains Challenger Dee, hills Cascades oceans 16. The four ma’cr landforms are a. plateaus, b. -iountains, c. plains, and d. hills. A-41 ~~" 17. The three mountain ranges in the United States are the a. Rockies, b. Appalachians and c. Sierra Nevada 18. The study of man's culture is called cultural geography. 19. The study of climates and their effect on man is called climatology. 20. The deep floor of the ocean is the Challenger Deep. Write the answer on the line that best describes the item (each answer, 2 points). #~-,s Zi. b lowest elevation Ze: b easy transportation 23. a mining 24, qd grazing 25% 4 highest elevation 26. d cool and dry 2f- dD industries 28.X -b forests 29. d elevated flat land 30. b centers of population a. mountains b. plains Cc. oceans d. plateaus A-42 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_0877%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.