CAPEEM case
The California Parents for Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM), a group founded specifically for the California schoolbook case after SBE's March 8 decision, filed the first lawsuit in Federal Court in Sacramento on March 14. The complaint was filed by Venkat Balasubramani, a Seattle attorney, who has worked in the past with public interest groups such as ACLU. Michael Newdow, an atheist attorney who is known for filing cases related to the deletion of the word 'God' from the Pledge of Allegiance, later joined CAPEEM's legal team.
The Court subsequently removed CDE and SBE as Defendants, because of existing legal rules, however, Judge Frank C. Damrell of the US District Court in the Eastern District Court of California allowed CAPEEM to amend the complaint on August 11/September 28, 2006, and go ahead against individual members of SBE and CDE.
The case then proceeded with the Discovery phase, and CAPEEM requested documents from the SBE and CDE, and issued subpoenas to various persons involved in this case, including CDE officials, SBE, publishers, Christian groups such as the Dalit Freedom Network, the Council on Islamic Education, Curriculum Commission member Charles Munger, Jr., and the review committee members S. Wolpert, J. Heitzman and M. Witzel.
The subpoena to Charles Munger, Jr., and Rae Belisle resulted in emails that showed connections between them and members of churches.
Among other subpoenas, CAPEEM issued an extensive subpoena to Witzel to support their law case of March 2006 against members of CBE/SBE. Witzel turned over several CDs containing emails but CAPEEM followed up with a motion to compel him to deliver additional documents.
A hearing in Massachusetts District Court was held on July 3, 2007. As per court documents (see No. 07-2286), the court granted Witzel's motion for a protective order and denied CAPEEM's motion to compel "because it sought documents and communications that were not relevant and, therefore, not discoverable." CAPEEM appealed that ruling. On July 7, 2008, a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (No. 07-2286) denied an appeal by CAPEEM and decided that "CAPEEM has not shown that the Massachusetts district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to compel."
CAPEEM's subpoena to Witzel also resulted in Witzel's deposition at which his lawyer pleaded with CAPEEM to not publicize the deposition transcript and sought an agreement that CAPEEM would not publicize the transcript of the deposition. CAPEEM agreed to enter into such an agreement and has not publicized the deposition transcript of Witzel.
The subpoena to Dalit Freedom Network resulted in exposing the fact that it was not a Dalit group but a group that operated out of a church. Emails obtained from the group also showed that Witzel coordinated his activities with the church group and even erased the information that they were a religious group from Wikipedia's description of the group.
CAPEEM also had several experts on its side including the noted biblical scholar Professor Joe Barnhart who pointed out that the textbooks indulged in indoctrination.
On February 25, 2009, the California Federal Court ruled that CAPEEM's claim was viable with respect to the actual process of adoption but denied the plaintiff CAPEEM motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the Establishment Clause as they lacked standing, and partly granted and partly denied the defendant Members of the California State Board of Education's motion.
n June 2, 2009, the Court ruled that good cause having been shown, and pursuant to United States' Rule of Civil Procedures, it accepts the Plaintiff's and Defendant's Settlement and General Release Agreement. Concurrently, the Attorney General of California reached a settlement with CAPEEM where CAPEEM received $175,000 from the California State Board of Education, and both parties agreed to release each other from all claims and both parties agreed not to appeal
Hindu American Foundation case
A second lawsuit was filed by HAF in March 2006 against the Board of Education over the procedures used for reviewing the textbooks. HAF contended that the procedures did not satisfy the applicable laws. The HAF also sought a temporary injunction against the publication of the textbooks, which was denied by the judge.
Given the gravity of the charges and the potential disruption to the state textbooks, the court moved expeditiously and made its ruling in September 2006. Regarding the HAF claim that the Board of Education failed "in some instances" to follow the State laws regarding public meetings, the court agreed and directed the Board to update its procedures. However, the court did not find these "deficiencies in the regulatory framework" of the Board egregious enough to warrant the withdrawal of the textbooks. The procedures could be corrected while "maintaining the current adoption system."
After addressing the procedural illegalities, the court turned its attention to the claim that the textbooks did not "conform to the applicable legal standards". The HAF claimed that the textbooks "portrayed the Hindu religion in their discussion of the history, culture and religious traditions of ancient India in a negative light". It also claimed that "the texts contained factual inaccuracies and were generally ... not neutral".However, the court ruled that "the challenged texts comply with the applicable legal standards". It said that the portrayal of the Aryan invasion or migration was not grossly inaccurate, the treatment of Hinduism in the textbooks did not violate the standard set by the state, and it said that the caste system, being a historical reality, had to be discussed even if it engered a certain negative reaction in students. The contested textbooks, providing discussion and justification of the most contended issues (women's rights, dalits, Aryan invasion or migration, Hinduism as a monotheistic religion) stayed. Subsequent to the ruling, the HAF and the Board of Education reached a settlement, whereby the Board agreed to pay part of the legal expenses incurred by the HAF. Both the HAF and the opposing groups claimed victory.
Educationist LaSpina comments that the lawsuits were filed after the State Board made "extraordinary efforts" to reach a compromise with the Hindu groups The HAF did not regard the adopted changes as sufficient. LaSpina recommends that the educators need to become "prudently aware" of the Hindu-American community's concerns over the portrayal of their history, religion and culture.