5-Year-Old Doesn't Have to Cut His Hair

By TChris, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:19:20 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Adriel Arocha, a 5 year old boy who attends school in the Needville (TX) Independent School District, wears his hair in two long braids. He and his parents argue that the hairstyle promotes his Native American heritage and religious beliefs. The school district argued that it was "not really open to letting 5-year-olds make their own rules” and told him to comply with the school's dress code which requires boys (but not girls) to keep their hair short and unbraided.

After "Adriel’s parents attempted to convince district officials to grant their son a religious exemption," the school board voted to let Adriel "wear his hair in a tightly woven single braid down his back with the hair behind his ears, out of his eyes and the braid tucked into the collar of his shirt." The school superintendent expressed pride in Needville's "structure and discipline." The school district apparently takes less pride in the Constitution's guarantees of freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

Fortunately, after Adriel was suspended for rejecting the school board's "compromise" and returning to school with twin braids worn outside his shirt, the ACLU stepped in. [more ...]

A federal judge ruled yesterday that the school can't substitute its interest in conformity for Adriel's sincerely held religious beliefs.

U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison ruled that Needville ISD is permanently barred from forcing 5-year-old Adriel Arocha to comply with terms of a dress-code exemption policy the district created specifically for the boy. That policy “violates not only Adriel Arocha’s free exercise rights, but also his rights to free expression and his parents’ due process rights,” Judge Ellison said in court documents released Wednesday.

Judge Ellison noted that Adriel's hairstyle isn't disruptive -- indeed, it couldn't be, given that girls are permitted to wear their hair in long braids. Judge Ellison also rejected the school district's contention that Adriel's hairstyle was a matter of "personal choice" and not the result of religious convictions, given his inability to point to a specific religious text that instructed him to wear his hair long. It isn't up to courts or the government to decide whether a personal religious belief fits within a particular religious dogma, Judge Ellison noted.

“Plaintiff Arocha is only required to show that he himself has these ‘deeply held religious beliefs,’ which he has done,” Judge Ellison said in the ruling. “He describes his hair as ‘an outward extension of who we are and where we come from, our ancestry and where we’re going in life.’ He taught Adriel Arocha that his hair demonstrates ‘how long he has been here’ and ‘is an extension of who (Adriel) is.’”
The judge ruled that forcing Adriel to wear a 13-inch braid inside his shirt would not only be "physically burdensome" for the next 11 years of his school life, the policy would act to "influence him to cut his hair in violation of his religious beliefs. In the alternative, it forces him to choose between the generally available benefit of attending Needville public schools, or, on the other hand, following his religious beliefs."

Putting aside the religious question (which makes the case easy), constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe has argued that the Constitution guarantees a right to personal autonomy -- a right to define one's own identity. That seems to me to be a part of the freedom to be an individual, unique American -- a freedom the government should not lightly take from us simply because some governmental rule-makers prefer (or take pride in) conformity.

And really, aren't schools supposed to be teaching individuals, as opposed to tending sheep?

< Drug Dogs and School Parking Lots | The Beltway Establishment Is The Pro-Torture Lobby >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

5-Year-Old Doesn't Have to Cut His Hair | 59 comments (59 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

As long as I can remember (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by nellre on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:43:26 PM EST

And I'm old, so it goes back to the 50s, schools have promoted uniformity and discouraged individuality.
little ticky tacky boxes that all look the same.
They used to measure skirt length with a ruler and send us home if the skirt was x inches above the knee.
The boys hair could not touch his collar.
Then the 60s happened.

Well (none / 0) (#9)
by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:46:53 PM EST

there are numerous studies that show your behavior does change based on how you dress. When people dress more casually, they tend to act more casually, and conversely, when people dress up/better, they tend to act more responsibly and better. That's why there are so many arguments for school uniforms.


The problem (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by TChris on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:53:15 PM EST

is that studies about "tendencies" treat people as undifferentiated sheep, not as individuals. I suppose kids who wear uniforms might learn to "respect authority" but they won't learn to be individuals. And vague notions that formal dress causes people to behave "better" than casual dress tell us nothing about whether casual dress substantially interferes with teaching. I grew up in a farm community where kids came to school in jeans or overalls -- can't get much more casual than that. But we had no serious problems with school violence or blatant disobedience (except for my long-haired friend who got beaten up by some rednecks who didn't like his hairstyle, but the problem there was with the rednecks, not the hairstyle).


Would you go so far (none / 0) (#15)
by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:03:21 PM EST

as to allow kids to wear bathing suits, then?

I appreciate your argument about the tendencies, and it's a fair point, but I think that's pretty easy to verify within your own family and social circles - observe their behavior in different situations when they are wearing different things. Heck, I know from myself - the rare occasion I wear a suit to work (when I have an interview), I tend to be more serious, I sit up straighter, and I'm more focused. Normally, I wear business casual, and I slouch a lot sitting at my computer, I put my legs up on the computer monitor, and I'm not nearly as in to my work.

I bet you could ask a lot of teachers if they notice a difference in behavior when kids dress up or when they look sloppy. My mom was a public school teacher, and I can tell you, I heard for years about this very phenomenon.


In my opinion (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by CST on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:23:32 PM EST

If you are going to have a dress code, make sure it is the same for boys as it is for girls (that includes skirts). So you can ban bathing suits, or excessive skin. But you shouldn't define "gender roles" in any way, shape or form. If you are going to require uniforms, make sure boys and girls can get the same ones.

Schools should not be in the business of determining WHO gets to wear what. Just what you can wear.


: Fair point (none / 0) (#29)
by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:40:59 PM EST

Ask your mom about what (none / 0) (#33)
by oldpro on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 05:16:36 PM EST

she has observed in teacher behavior when dress codes went out the window for them?

When was the last time you saw a public school teacher in (male) coat and tie or (female) in dress and heels?

Me neither.


Funny you should mention that (none / 0) (#36)
by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 05:40:57 PM EST

She always did rail against what she called "the baby teachers" who wore jeans or as she said "looked like they just got done scrubbing the floor". She hated sandals in school (not good for kids to play on the playground) and felt teachers should not wear them either.

She didn't wear suits, as she was often crawling on the floor (she taught kindergarten), but she always wore nice pants or skirts. She said teachers always complain that they were not treated as professionals with college degrees and part of the reason was because they didn't dress like professionals.


: Your mom and I are "old school!" (none / 0) (#38)
by oldpro on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 05:52:52 PM EST

Couldn't agree more.
I, too, was a teacher in the late 50s-early 60s. My colleagues were a mixed lot...mostly C-students who didn't have a clue about lifelong learning and certainly didn't think it applied to them!
They, then and now, demanded respect...clueless that respect is earned and cannot be compelled.

My son went to a private (none / 0) (#39)
by weltec2 on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 06:23:21 PM EST

junior high and high school where he had to wear a school uniform with a tie and jacket all the time. I would say that some wear it better and more neatly than others. I'm not sure that it changes much. Some are more suited to suits than others.


It seems to me (5.00 / 0) (#13)
by Steve M on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:57:27 PM EST

that when kids wear their hair in whatever way is favored by their culture, it ought to help them respect authority and tradition, not work against those goals. It's not like the kid was showing up in a burlap sack.


Anytime I hear "numerous studies" (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by jondee on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:06:00 PM EST

without reference to a single specific one, I feel like Im in Fox - r.w talk radio land.

What does wearing your hair in a traditional manner have to with "casual" vs uniform?


I was speaking to the larger point (none / 0) (#19)
by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:07:24 PM EST

I have no problem with the kid wearing long hair. My questions are more to the point that I don't think it should be "anything goes" at school and that the school does have a right to place limitations on certain things.


: The courts and ACLU agree with you... (none / 0) (#23)
by roy on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:15:16 PM EST

...it's not that schools can't place limitations, it's that religious freedom can trump them.

What behavior do you want? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by ricosuave on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 05:18:42 PM EST

Do you want kids to exhibit creativity, uniqueness, and personality, or do you want them all alike? Over the last 20 years, most major corporations have gone from allowing casual Friday, to allowing casual clothes every day. I have visited companies all over the country, and there is almost nowhere left that suit and tie is the norm for most workers (though it is still the norm for the absolute top rungs of some big companies). Companies have learned the exact opposite lesson of what you are saying here--workers who dress casually are more comfortable and more productive, and they are happy to spend less on their clothes and on cleaning bills. (The same goes with showing personality by decorating their workspace.)

When the kid (even before the parents got involved) asked the administration to waive or remove their rules, and had a decent argument to do so, they should have simply said yes unless they had a compelling reason to say no (e.g. "Your neon flashing hat will disrupt the classroom"). That is what happens in a free society.

Their reason to say no was basically "because that is the rules." That is what authority figures do in a non-free society. That is the kind of school, workplace, or society where people are not happy. Why are we teaching our kids to accept this kind of thing?


Both (none / 0) (#37)
by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 05:44:08 PM EST

I want creativity, but I want them to learn to follow the rules (and learn math). And that's part of the problem with many kids today - no respect for rules.

Workplace "casual" dress has actually gotten out of hand, in my opinion. I thought it was highly inappropriate when I worked at a county court, on causal Fridays, that the people in the clerk's office wore t-shirts and tacky jeans. They looked like they were going to work on their car, rather than work with the public.


Kids don't respect rules... (none / 0) (#60)
by kdog on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:49:56 AM EST

because the rules we set are often not worthy of respect...case in point right here.

Want rules respected and obeyed? Set rules worthy of respect that make sense to obey.


: Kids don't respect rules (none / 0) (#61)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:47:27 AM EST

because they aren't taught.

I can't believe we're still going around trying (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by tigercourse on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:01:35 PM EST

to force Native Americans to cut their freaking hair. It's the 21st Century not 19th.

fwiw, one of the major points brought up (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 05:10:34 PM EST

by the school board is that there is no proof that the boy, or his father, have any Native American bloodlines whatsoever:

(Kenney Arocha [the boy's father] has stated that relatives told him he is part American Indian, but is not a formal member of a tribe.)

We should probably not refer to him being a NA as absolute.

Of course, religion is a set of beliefs not a bloodline.

Does it bother (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by NYShooter on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 06:54:02 PM EST

Any of our "free expression" zealots here that in the 50's our 12th grade students were first in math and science in the world?

Today we outperform only Cyprus and South Africa.

A recent report by the organization for Economic Co-operation and Development states that "upward of 60% of Americans ages 16-25 are "functionally illiterate," meaning they can't, for example fill out a detailed form or read a numerical table (like a time schedule.) A recent Florida study shows at least 70% of recent high school graduates need remedial courses---that is, basic reading and math---when they enter community college.

Let's hear it for individuality!

Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by squeaky on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 07:00:09 PM EST

What a non sequitur and false syllogism.

Are you suggesting that if Leave it to Beaver social codes were mandated throughout our society US students would be tops in math and science in international competition?


If you're going to (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by NYShooter on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 08:37:19 PM EST

make a categorical statement about a false syllogism, you should state what's false about it. I know from personal experience the immediate, and positive effect, a dress code has on both learning and behavior.

Unless you have empirical evidence otherwise, your comments, while witty and amusing, remain superfluous and vacuous.

Is lack of a dress code the only reason for our poor scholastic performance? Of course not, but throughout Asia dress codes are the norm. And the fact that they`re kicking our butts in scholastic achievement shows, at least anecdotally, that there may be a connection.


kankeinai desho (none / 0) (#51)
by weltec2 on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:35:25 PM EST

That's just... nonsense. I'm sorry. Do YOU have any studies to back up such a claim? While it is true that my son's math scores are far superior to what mine were at his age it has far more to do with the fact that here in Japan he went to regular school until mid afternoon and then went to a juku (cram school) where -- because he wanted to major in physics in college -- he studied math and physics until ten and eleven at night. The program here is far more rigorous. Kids who are serious about college have far less time off.

He never cared about his uniform. Half the time it was half just hanging off of him. I'm sure at school he straightened up, but otherwise he hated it.


So where's the argument? (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by NYShooter on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:23:14 PM EST

You have a brilliant son...mazeltof!

However,I gave you a study; look at #41 above. I could give you a dozen more, but you can do your own work. (try Google/schools/uniforms/results) I also said that a dress code is not the only reason for superior learning results, just that schools that have one consistently outperform those that don't.

And you should know better than to use a single example, the fact that your son doesn't care about uniforms, to condemn an entire philosophy. Your son's school, which by your own words, produces superior students, feels uniforms are a CONTRIBUTING factor in providing an atmosphere of seriousness and purpose.

You really should read first, comprehend second, and shoot last.

Please give your son a big "way-to-go!" from me, if you would.


"A recent Florida study" (none / 0) (#53)
by weltec2 on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:42:41 PM EST

is on the same par with "some say". That is not a reference. Also, the link that you gave me (Google/schools/uniforms/results) says just exactly the opposite of what you claim. See here:

"This study showed that uniforms did not lead to an improvement in attendance, behavior, drug use, or academic achievement."


: Thank you, (none / 0) (#57)
by NYShooter on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 11:19:04 PM EST

I respect your position.
There really is nothing else to discuss.

OK (none / 0) (#54)
by squeaky on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:44:45 PM EST

I will spell it out for you.

Non Sequitur because the thread is not about:

that in the 50's our 12th grade students were first in math and science in the world

Also your argument that :

the 50's our 12th grade students were first in math and science in the world

because that they had to wear uniforms,

Therefore, students who wear uniforms perform higher scores and are therefore smarter and better students.

That is false


: Please, you're much too smart (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by NYShooter on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 11:17:18 PM EST

to keep spouting this nonsense.
First, I didn't start the topic of dress codes in school, Please scroll back and see for yourself.
Second, if your position is so rigid that you retreat to just plain silliness, we don`t have a discussion, we have a mindless ping pong match of retorts. I never said kids in the 50's did better BECAUSE they wore uniforms, but anecdotally, having a dress code contributed to a more serious learning environment, which resulted in higher achievement performances.
*****************************
"Therefore, students who wear uniforms perform higher scores and are therefore smarter and better students.
That is false"
************************
What is false is your disingenuous characterization of my position. Try this: "Many students who attend schools which emphasize an atmosphere of purpose and protocol, among which a dress code is a part, tend to produce students who are better equipped to deal effectively with the outside, adult world, and who also achieve higher scholastic results.
"Smarter" has nothing to do with it.

What did you wear to logic class? (5.00 / 3) (#43)
by roy on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 07:02:15 PM EST

Guffaw. nt (none / 0) (#45)
by Joelarama on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 07:40:02 PM EST

: brilliant! (none / 0) (#48)
by NYShooter on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 08:37:57 PM EST

Remarkable (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 08:08:30 AM EST

Hopefully the mullet, which also promotes the heritage of some in Needville TX will also be suspendable.

: Haha (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by Steve M on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 08:27:26 AM EST

Be nice!

But, this is Texas (2.00 / 1) (#1)
by scribe on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:25:00 PM EST

where everyone (not named Bush) is expected to be a nice little sheep.

Had to be Texas.

Being a Texas Liberal (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by txpolitico67 on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:26:25 PM EST

I take some exception to your remark. intolerance and ignorance isn't relegated to the south, as we all saw what happened at a BART station in CA here recently (extreme example but you get my drift) and the cops that shot that immigrant in NYC like 5000 times.

Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan and Ralph Yarborough were from Texas, too. They were all as progressive as one could ever be.

And FTR, Bush and that clan are from CONNECTICUT not Texas, thankyouverymuch!


Connecticut can take partial credit for (none / 0) (#44)
by Joelarama on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 07:39:06 PM EST

G.H.W. Bush.

George W. Bush? He's Texan, through and through.


: Share the blame... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
by sumac on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 07:49:42 PM EST

W was born in Connecticut and went to high school in Massachusetts. He then went to Yale and Harvard. But he has made his home in TX and has also had a hand in ruining several TX businesses.
Interesting side note: he applied to the University of Texas School of Law but was denied. As a graduate of UT (grad school), that makes me happier than it probably should.

: wrong (none / 0) (#49)
by txpolitico67 on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:03:42 PM EST

I'm a Texan through and through because I was born here, went to school here and my family is here.
The Bushes are carpetbaggers THROUGH and THROUGH

Why blame Texas? (none / 0) (#4)
by Erehwon on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:32:55 PM EST

I live in upstate NY and I can easily visualize some local school district trying to do something similar, although I am more hopeful their lawyers wouldn't let it go that far! :-(


: Because in Texas, unlike even upstate (none / 0) (#24)
by scribe on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:17:27 PM EST

New York, the lawyers are the ones leading the charge, as opposed to putting the brakes on the knuckleheads.

: Three unfortunate examples (none / 0) (#40)
by roy on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 06:51:02 PM EST

New York violates the First Amendment too: 1, 2, 3.
There's a sad tendency for school administrators to abuse their power across the country, especially for the sake of enforcing conformity or sanitizing every anything reminiscient of violence. You might want to follow FIRE; they track these things, mostly focussing on colleges though.
Don't mess with Texas, without fact-checking.

And let people named (none / 0) (#8)
by jondee on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:43:59 PM EST

Bush do to them what they do to sheep. Praise the Lord.


hair (none / 0) (#2)
by capitalistfloridaboy on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:28:33 PM EST

cat the hair or chance schools.

While I agree about the hair (none / 0) (#3)
by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:32:03 PM EST

Schools are allowed to set their own rules so the teaching can take place.

Putting aside the religious question (which makes the case easy), constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe has argued that the Constitution guarantees a right to personal autonomy -- a right to define one's own identity. That seems to me to be a part of the freedom to be an individual, unique American -- a freedom the government should not lightly take from us simply because some governmental rule-makers prefer (or take pride in) conformity.
And really, aren't schools supposed to be teaching individuals, as opposed to tending sheep?

By this argument, do you want Tinker thrown out?

: Let's remember (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by TChris on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:47:14 PM EST

that Tinker protected the right of the protesting kids to wear armbands. "Teaching can take place" regardless of how kids dress or wear their hair. Tinker's balancing test requires a "substantial interference" with teaching before schools can interfere with First Amendment rights. Allowing kids to decide for themselves how to dress or what hairstyle or piercings to wear will rarely cause a substantial interference with teaching.

Our schools (none / 0) (#5)
by SOS on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:38:16 PM EST

have suffered a major hit in recent and are not teaching individuals but have gone back to training and indoctrinating these lil' tykes to grow up to be "consumers".

We need to train kids (none / 0) (#6)
by SOS on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:39:24 PM EST

to be producers. Who know the difference between right and wrong.

Let's see (none / 0) (#12)
by bocajeff on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:56:11 PM EST

The law is sexist in that it bars boys from growing hair as long as girls can.

Next problem.

One thing civil libertarians forget though is that these rules are usually made to thwart some kind of problem. Absent other solutions (practical, not theoretical) you get policies that are bad solutions to even worse problems...

Interesting (none / 0) (#16)
by eric on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:04:07 PM EST

it probably does run afoul of Equal Protection. Hadn't thought of that.


Do you know of (none / 0) (#18)
by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:06:02 PM EST

any school that allows boys to wear skirts (except on special dress up days like Halloween or Powder Puff game day?)

Couldn't the same argument be made there?


The agument could be made (none / 0) (#21)
by TChris on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:09:04 PM EST

but by the same logic, the argument could be made that girls shouldn't be allowed to wear pants. Frankly, I don't know a lot of boys who want to wear skirts to school, which is probably why the issue doesn't arise.


Do you know (none / 0) (#22)
by CST on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:11:03 PM EST

Of any schools that ban skirts on boys?

Maybe it exists, but I am pretty sure I've never heard it. FYI - some boys at my school sometimes wore skirts. They weren't kicked out, but I don't live in Texas.


Well (none / 0) (#28)
by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:39:53 PM EST

It does seem that schools can differentiate boys/girls wear (not necessarily skirts).

Here's a few examples I found:

Houston County Schools in Georgia specifically say male students may not wear earrings:

Rd River Parish has a list of "boys" clothing and "girls" clothing, which are different

Waxahachie, Texas has some differences for boys and girls - especially when it comes to shirts Link

Anecdotally, a Chicago school noticed a lessening of agression when girls were made to wear skirts and boys were made to wear shirt slacks and ties


: I didn't say it was illegal (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by CST on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:43:18 PM EST

I just think it SHOULD be.
Personally, I would become a lot more aggressive if someone tried to make me wear a skirt. I might just kick them.

Do kilts count? (none / 0) (#50)
by weltec2 on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:18:45 PM EST

Don't agree. Such roolz are NOT (none / 0) (#32)
by oldpro on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 05:11:03 PM EST

'usually made to thwart some problem.'

They are made to enforce control of what some folks in authority choose to define as a problem.

Went through this with kids in the 60s and 70s. Same old crap.


OT But Related (none / 0) (#20)
by squeaky on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:07:52 PM EST

Children at that age often look at secondary sex characteristics as determining gender. Someone I knew had a 5 year old boy with long hair and a pony tail. He was made fun of and called a girl by his classmates. One day he pulled down his pants to show that he was a boy and the other children said that did not matter. He was a girl because he had long hair and girls have long hair, despite having a penis.

Religious Exemptions? (none / 0) (#55)
by TLK Nic on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:50:33 PM EST

The Adriel-specific dress code clearly fails under either religion clause, but didn't Smith do away with the exemption analysis in the '90s? Actually, how does any public school dress code short of banning "gang colors," etc. ever pass now that exemptions are out (as they should be -- Sherbert/Yoder (and RFRA for that matter) are antiquated and contrary to the rule of law, imho).

Also, if we're working with RFRA/RLUIPA, (religious exercise need not be compelled by nor central to a system of religious beliefs) then why does it matter if the boy's hair style is compelled by a religious text or not, so long as his belief is sincere?

One more thing, the Court's language about forcing a choice seems reminiscent of both Lee v. Weissman and Tx Monthly v. Bullock. Do you think that's intentional, or are the Religion Clauses bleeding together now?