On Monday (September 27), District Court Judge Mitchell Goldberg refused to issue a temporary restraining order (T.R.O.) that would have prevented the Tredyffrin Easstown School District from requiring that the children of four plaintiffs had to wear masks in the school. The parents wanted the court to order the school district to lift the mask requirements for their children on the basis of their supposed religious beliefs.
The four plaintiffs were Sara Marvin, Alicia Geerlings, David Governanti, and Andrew McClellan.
Marvin told the court that she “believes people are made in the image of God and it therefore dishonors God to cover our faces. The only part of the body Marvin believes should not be covered is the head.”
Geerlings asked for the T.R.O because she “believes the body is a temple and must not be harmed, and in her view, masks violate the prohibition on harming the body because they are unhealthy.” Geerings also explained that “wearing a mask caused “maskne” (mask acne) and sinus infections for which she has been taking antibiotics, and her son has experienced severe headaches on the days he has worn a mask.”
Click here to read the full ruling.
Governanti said he “that he must not harm his daughter, which, in his view, means he must not allow his daughter to wear a mask. Governanti has seen his daughter come home from school lethargic and suffering from headaches and anxiety, which he concluded was due to wearing a mask. Governanti acknowledged that his daughter went to school and wore a mask last school year, but Mr. Governanti objects to her wearing a mask this year because he now knows more about the harmful effects of masks.
McLellan said he “believes God intervened in his life to save him from certain trauma, and that masks are a mockery of the gift of life because they cover what makes us human and show a lack of gratitude to the creator. McLellan acknowledged that his son wears a helmet for football and a head covering for wrestling.”
Judge Goldberg was not convinced that any of the four plaintiffs’ objections to having their children wear masks in school was based on actual religious belief. In his conclusion, he wrote – Because Plaintiffs have not shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, Plaintiffs are not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction. I will therefore deny Plaintiffs’ Motion.