On March 6, 2026, the New Jersey District Court rendered an unpublished opinion in Sapp v. Trenton Bd. of Educ., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46397 (D.N.J. Mar. 6, 2026), on the issue of whether a parent could state a claim against the Trenton Board of Education and several staff members under the First and Fourteenth Amendments after the Plaintiff was banned from school property.
The Plaintiff, Rashon Sapp, had joint legal custody of his fourth-grade son, who was enrolled with the Thomas Jeferson Intermediate School. Plaintiff, a practicing Muslim, believed and participated in a weekly religious observance every Friday because, according to him, Friday is designated as a “Day of Assembly” in which Muslims are to leave off business and pray.
Plaintiff picked up the student two and a half hours early from school on the first and second Friday of the school year. The school’s principal expressed uncertainty as to if this was allowed, but she let Plaintiff take the student. The next Friday, a security guard told Plaintiff that he could not pick up the student. Plaintiff was told that Jamasja Barber, the student’s mother, informed the school that Plaintiff was only permitted to pick up his son on Mondays and Wednesdays pursuant to a family court order. Plaintiff was told by the school that the student could pray at school and that two and a half hours a week away was too much time to miss. Plaintiff threatened to sue and filed a complaint with the New Jersey Department of Education. Plaintiff returned the following Monday with two officers from the Trenton Police Department, who escorted Plaintiff to the Principal’s office to discuss why his religious request to pick up his son was denied. Two days later, Plaintiff reported a bias crime to the Trenton Police Department after the student was suspended from school and the student’s mother was called to pick him up, rather than the Plaintiff. Plaintiff was thereafter told by the Principal that there would be a meeting on Friday after the student returned from his suspension to discuss the ongoing issues with Plaintiff. When he arrived for the meeting, he was greeted by security officers and police, who informed him that he could not enter the building. The student’s mother, however, was allowed into the school where she had a meeting with school administration. Plaintiff then left the school without entering.
Twenty minutes later, Plaintiff received a letter notifying him he was prohibited from entering any Trenton Board of Education building for any reason. Forty minutes later, he received a notice that the student’s mother had sought an emergent hearing in the family court seeking a revised restraining order. The student’s mother’s application alleged that Plaintiff was not following the court order governing parenting time by requesting to pick up his son from school every Friday, and that plaintiff had been harassing school officials and demonstrating signs of mental instability.
Plaintiff filed suit against Thomas Jeferson Intermediate School, several school administrators, and the Trenton Board of Education after the school district banned him from school property and denied his request to pick up the student two and a half hours early each Friday for religious observances. Plaintiff alleged a series of claims, including First Amendment Free Exercise claims, Violations of his 14th Amendment Due Process Rights, and a series of tort claims. At the heart of the case is the question: what rights do parents have to access school property?
Plaintiff’s constitutional claims against the Board of Education and school administrators were all dismissed. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim was dismissed because the Court found that parents do not have an unqualified right to access school property. Plaintiff alleged that his rights were violated when he was banned from school property without due process. In analyzing the issue, the Court recounted that “[i]t has long been recognized that parents have a constitutional right to control the education of their children…. But such a right is neither absolute nor unqualified.” The Court found that, while parents have a right to direct their children’s education without unreasonable interference, that right does not include the right to access school premises.
Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim was likewise dismissed. Plaintiff alleged his religious Free Exercise rights were infringed by the school “unduly preferring non-religion over religion and interfering with [his] right to peaceably assemble for religious purposes.” The Court found that the Plaintiff had failed to show how the inability to remove the student from school impacts Plaintiff’s right to assemble and to exercise his religious rights. The Court further found that there was no suggestion that the school acted to suppress Plaintiff’s religious views or ideas. Accordingly, Plaintiff was unable to state a First Amendment claim.
The Court also dismissed Plaintiff’s various tort claims alleging negligence, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and interference with contractual relations, because Plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirements of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act.
This case is significant because it supports a school district’s right to prevent unauthorized parents from accessing school property. Thus, school districts may constitutionally ban certain parents from accessing school facilities. Further, the Court’s decision underscores the fact that a parent’s religious rights are not infringed when the school district refuses to alter its policies and procedures to allow a child to regularly miss school for religious reasons. Specifically, it was not a violation of the First Amendment to prevent the Plaintiff from taking his child away from school for two hours each week to pray.