Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GB V Crossroads Academy
GB V Crossroads Academy
ORDER
This ruling deals with the second round of the “Form 11 controversy”
between parents of several school children and State and school authorities. The
parents assert religious objections to required vaccinations but decline to sign and
submit the State agency form used for excusing children from a vaccination
plaintiffs contend that the Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services
form which, in the upper section, also contains a message from DHSS advocating
In earlier litigation last year, (the “W.B.” case), the federal constitutional
objection was rejected, and that ruling is on appeal. Plaintiffs have now advanced
some nine state law questions relative to the adoption of Form 11. I have
previously noted that aspect of the case, but advised it would not be ruled under
Street, et al, No. 19-00682-HFS, Doc. 69, p. 2. This new lawsuit was filed in
Missouri Circuit Court and removed here. It included both federal and state
federal claims in the removed case were dismissed by counsel without prejudice
…” Doc. 9. Instead, it is defense counsel who filed such a motion to dismiss, but
plaintiffs’ counsel resists dismissal of the federal claims, thus delaying processing
The current motion to dismiss (Doc. 14) is filed on behalf of the Crossroads
Defendants; that is, the school itself and two individuals, Ms. Parker and Ms.
Copeland. Plaintiffs respond (Doc. 16) that they “conditionally acquiesce to the
the Court” but reserve the right to appeal (as in the earlier case).
W.B. litigation, Docs. 52, 53, 62, 69, and 76. It would not be useful to repeat or
Judge would be free to take a second look, since the Missouri appellate courts
rather than the Eighth Circuit might ultimately be reviewing this litigation). The
plaintiffs’ opposition brief (Doc. 16) does not challenge the Missouri exemption
statute as such, but only Form 11, which was promulgated by the agency, DHSS,
earlier rulings have failed to take into account the allegations that Form 11 “and
But the claim has been considered and rejected. As stated in a footnote in
Doc. 52 in the W.B. case (p. 6), “One of the problems of plaintiffs’ briefing is that
1
Allegations about how other school districts have been dealing with other objecting parents do not pertain to this
defendant, and are not attributed to DHSS, unless I have missed an allegation in the voluminous filings.
advocacy portion of Form 11 “deals with public health issues. It is entirely secular
in nature and motive, not ‘hostile to religion.’” Doc. 69, p. 4. (emphasis added).
For instance, it would not be hostile to a religious objection to eating pork for an
agency to certify that pork is safe to eat. The certification, like the DHSS language
governmental motivation in carrying out normal activities. 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). Instead, a claim for relief must be “ ‘ plausible on its face.’ “ Id.
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
face a claim that Sunday closing laws were currently tainted with religious
motivation. McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 316, 444 (1961). The Court
recognized that “as presently written and administered … (the objective of such
laws is) improvement of the health, safety, recreation and general well-being of
motivation.
religious hostility here as an agency motivator is much less plausible than the
claims advanced in McGowan. While one might imagine that discovery of agency
records (e-mails, for example) could unearth some hostility toward the scientific
that religious bias was a motivator of the promulgation and use of Form 11.2
2
Neither agency officials nor the undersigned may know what the pertinent religious tenets of plaintiffs may be.
They have no obligation to articulate or defend any such views, but an asserted hostility by DHSS toward unknown
views seemingly defies experience and common sense.
Health & Senior Services. The motion to dismiss (Doc. 14) is therefore GRANTED
as to the federal claims, but not as to any state claims adequately asserted.3
HOWARD F. SACHS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 2, 2020
Kansas City, Missouri
3
Remand apparently remains premature because the unrelated defendant Dr. Rex Archer has made an
appearance, which keeps the case here as active litigation.