Federal Courts in Pennsylvania Rule on Mask Mandate in Schools

By William J. Zee & Megan E. Bomba

October 4, 2021

Since the Pennsylvania State Acting Health Secretary Alison Beam’s mask mandate on August 31, 2021, parents and community members have initiated litigation aimed at challenging not only the actions of the Wolf administration, but also that of school districts and board of directors across the Commonwealth with respect to their implementation of the Order. Opinions issued this week in the Eastern and Middle District Courts of Pennsylvania both denied efforts to halt continued implementation of the Order.

In Geerlings, et al. v. Tredyffrin/Easttown School District, the plaintiffs, a group of parents, filed for emergency injunctive relief against the Tredyffrin/Easttown School District to prohibit the school district from implementing Secretary Beam’s Order. The parent group sought to discontinue the enforcement of the mandate based on the theory that the Order violates First Amendment rights by impinging upon religious beliefs. The plaintiffs argued further that masks are not classified as an approved medical device, and the Acting Secretary of Health lacked the authority to issue the Order.

With respect to the request for a religious exemption, the Eastern District Court found that each parent failed to established an opposition to masking based on sincerely held religious beliefs. As for the masks as medical devices, the court rejected the argument that the mask mandate violates the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act) as it was not applicable to the use of masks in schools. Finally, the court deferred to pending litigation in state court over the issue of the legal authority of the Department of Health to issue the Order. Because the parents did not include claims of disability or medical exemptions, the Court did not address that issue.

In the Middle District, a group of parents challenged the implementation of the Masking Order by Montoursville School District (Oberheim, et al. v. Montoursville School District). Seeking an immediate suspension of the school district’s mask mandate, the parent group argued that the mask mandate contravened their right to parent their children. The suit also alleged that the school board maintained sole authority to make decisions about the appropriate disease control measures for the school district, and that the Department of Health (DoH) exceeded its authority.

In framing the opinion, Chief Judge Matthew Brann noted that, “no one except perhaps a bank robber likes to wear a mask—and even then with reluctance, but as a concession to professional attire. But the Constitution does not shield us from all things we dislike.”

The Court declined to grant the plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction seeking to prohibit the school board from enforcing the Mask Order. The Court determined that the plaintiffs failed to show how the mandate infringed on the rights of the students and parents or would cause irreparable harm. The Court found that the school district is required to follow the mask mandate because of the delegation by the Pennsylvania General Assembly to the DoH for disease control in public and private schools.

As more parents and groups file suits pertaining to the mask mandate, we expect to see further developments that will help guide school district implementation.

If you have any questions regarding these cases, or any other questions regarding COVID-19 mitigation issues, please do not hesitate to contact William J. Zee or any of the attorneys in the Appel, Yost & Zee Education Law Group.