Libby Hilsenrath, on Behalf of Her Minor Child, C. H. v. Chathams School District Board of Education

In Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 597 U.S. 507, 587 (2022), this Court expressly rejected Lemon’s “ambitious[] attempt[] to find a grand unified theory of the Establishment Clause.” American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n, 588 U.S. 29, 60 (2019). The majority in Hilsenrath v. Sch. Dist. of Chathams, 136 F4.th 484 (3d Cir. 2025) replaced that unified test with one of its own— a “hallmarks” test—that the concurrence, the Fifth Circuit, and two district courts have rejected. Moreover, the majority’s newly minted hallmarks test is inconsistent with Lee v. Weisman and Edwards v. Aguillard, which recognize that the Establishment Clause provides much broader protection in the public school context, including protection from even “subtle coercive pressure” that violates the government’s “duty to guard and respect that sphere of inviolable conscience and belief which is the mark of a free people.” Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 592 (1992). And Mahmoud v. Taylor confirms that the principle identified in Lee and Edwards—that a parent has the right to direct the upbringing of her child—“receives a generous measure of protection from our Constitution.” 145 S.Ct. 2332, 2351 (2025); Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 584 (1987) (explaining that “the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student or his or her family”). The questions presented are: Whether a public school violates the Establishment Clause by assigning content that proselytizes for, extols, and gives favored treatment