E.W. v. French

Distr lean IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 70? FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT B22 OCT 2] PM [: 10 E.W., by and through her parents and By natural guardians, Joseph and Heather Se PUPQArepR Williams; J.W., by and through his parents and natural guardians, Joseph and Heather Williams; JOSEPH WILLIAMS, individually; HEATHER WILLIAMS, individually; and the ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BURLINGTON, VERMONT, Case No. 2:22-CV-59-cr Plaintiffs, v. DANIEL M. FRENCH, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Education; KRISTIN HUBERT, in her official capacity as Superintendent of the Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union; and the BARSTOW UNIFIED UNION SCHOOL BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Defendants. MODIFIED STIPULATED JUDGMENT A. The Parties’ Final Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs and Defendants Kristin Hubert and Barstow Unified Union Board of School Directors hereby AGREE and STIPULATE: 1. The Williams family and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington brought this lawsuit alleging that Defendants violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights through exclusion from tuition benefits provided under Vermont statute. See 16 V.S.A. §§ 821-28. oe The Vermont Supreme Court previously held that “a school district violates Chapter I, Article 3 [of the Vermont Constitution] when it reimburses tuition for a sectarian school under § 822 in the absence of adequate safeguards against the use of such funds for religious worship.” Chittenden Town Sch. Dist. v. Dep’t of Educ., 738 A.2d 539, 541-42 (1999). 3. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants excluded them from tuition benefits because of the so-called “adequate safeguards” requirement articulated by the Vermont Supreme Court in Chittenden. 4, The U.S. Supreme Court previously explained that denying public benefits because of religious status or character violates the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017); Espinoza v. Montana Dep’t of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (2020). 5. The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that “a State’s antiestablishment interest does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise.” Carson v. Makin, 142 S. Ct. 1987, 1998 (2022). 6. The parties agree that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Carson decision renders Vermont’s adequate safeguards requirement unconstitutional. 7. The parties agree that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Carson decision prohibits the enforcement of the adequate safeguards requirement to deny payment of tuition to independent schools based on their religious status, affiliation, beliefs, exercise, or activities. They further agree to restrict the guidance Defendants Hubert and Barstow Unified Union School Board of Directors shall provide to others. B. The Court’s Judgment and Enforcement of the Parties’ Agreement. Based upon Defendants’ consent to a permanent injunction, the court hereby enters a Modified Stipulated Judgment pursuant to the parties’ Final Settlement Agreement and the foregoing stipulation as follows: 1. Defendants, their officers, agents, and assigns shall not enforce the adequate safeguards requirement to deny payment of tuition to independent schools based on their religious status, affiliation, beliefs, exercise, or activities. Zn Defendants shall provide notice to tuition-eligible resident families described in the parties’ Final Settlement Agreement informing them of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Carson decision. 3. Defendants shall reimburse the Williams family for tuition paid by them consistent with the parties’ Final Settlement Agreement, and Defendants shall pay Mt. St. Joseph Academy for outstanding tuition balances consistent with the parties’ Final Settlement Agreement. 4. Defendants shall process and honor tuition requests consistent with the parties’ Final Settlement Agreement. 5. This Modified Stipulated Judgment and the terms of the parties’ Final Settlement Agreement resolve all claims made by Plaintiffs against Defendants in this action, including Plaintiffs’ claims for attorney's fees, expenses, and costs, as well as any other claims Plaintiffs could have brought against Defendants based on the facts alleged in the Complaint. 6. The attached Addendum to Modified Stipulated Judgment is incorporated herein. 7. The court reserves jurisdiction to enforce or modify this Modified Stipulated Judgment. In the event that any party fails to comply with this Modified Stipulated Judgment, any adverse party may file a motion with this court seeking its enforcement. SO ORDERED on (4. 27_, 2022. Hon. Christina Reiss United States District Judge