Scenario A Court Ruling: Religious Accommodation, Ramadan and a School Food Project (Free Exercise Clause)

Scenario A: Religious fasting and a class food project

A teacher at Highland High School requires all students to bring in food from a Spanish-speaking country as part of their Spanish class project. The due date fell during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, when Muslims abstain from all food or drink from dawn to sunset. A Muslim student was not able to participate and received no credit, lowering the student’s class average by a full letter grade. The parent argued that this violated the student’s rights. The teacher argued that the syllabus, which listed the project and due date, was sent home at the beginning of the year, and the parent signed it. The school sided with the teacher because the parent was informed and school policy requires work to be completed on time.

• Identify which case from the lesson could be a precedent and explain why.
• Explain which side you would rule for (not personal opinion): how the school’s policy or employee’s action aligns with or violates the Constitution, and how the related case influences your ruling.
• Does your ruling reflect loose or strict interpretation of the Constitution?
• Discuss what reasoning dissenting justices might use.

Original example for study purposes. If your lesson lists different cases, choose the one closest to these principles.

Precedent

The best precedent is Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), in which the Supreme Court ruled that Wisconsin could not force Amish parents to send their children to school beyond eighth grade because doing so substantially burdened their sincere religious beliefs, and the state’s interest did not outweigh that burden. Like Yoder, this case involves a conflict between a school requirement and a family’s religious practice. A recent case, Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), also held that public schools must respect parents’ religious objections when classroom requirements substantially burden religious exercise, which reinforces Yoder. If your lesson includes West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), it is also relevant because it held that schools cannot compel students to participate in activities that violate their beliefs.

My Ruling

I would rule for the student and parent. The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, applied to states and public schools through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects the right to practice one’s religion. Fasting during Ramadan is a central religious obligation in Islam. The school’s grading decision effectively penalized the student for observing that obligation, reducing the student’s average by a full letter grade. Although the deadline policy is neutral, the school applied it rigidly when a simple accommodation, such as an alternative assignment, a different due date or allowing the student to bring food without eating it during daylight, would have met the project’s educational goals without burdening the student’s faith. As in Yoder, the school’s interest in enforcing a single due date is not strong enough to justify a substantial burden on sincere religious practice when reasonable alternatives exist. Signing the syllabus did not waive the student’s constitutional rights, especially since the conflict with Ramadan may not have been apparent months earlier.

Loose or Strict Interpretation?

My ruling reflects a loose (broad) interpretation of the Constitution. The text of the Free Exercise Clause does not mention grades, school projects or accommodations, so applying it here requires interpreting the clause’s purpose broadly: to protect people from government actions that pressure them to choose between their faith and important benefits, such as academic standing.

Possible Dissent

Dissenting justices might rely on Employment Division v. Smith (1990), which held that neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religion do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. They would argue that the project requirement applied to every student regardless of religion and was not aimed at Muslims. They might note that the assignment required students to bring food, not necessarily to eat it, so participation may not have violated the fast at all. They could also emphasize that the parent signed the syllabus and had months to request an accommodation, and that schools need consistent deadlines to treat all students fairly. Taking a stricter view of the Constitution, they would say the Free Exercise Clause does not require schools to grant exemptions from ordinary academic rules.

Cases cited

Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. ___ (2025).

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).