News Release
For Immediate Release: 8.20.26
Contact: Natalie Konstans, media@firstliberty.org
Direct: 972-941-4453
California Parents Ask Supreme Court to Hear Religious Discrimination Case
California aid programs prohibit parents from teaching their own children at home using curricula and publishers the state deems “religious.”
Washington, D.C.— On behalf of three California families who were excluded from a state program because they chose religious material to homeschool their own children, First Liberty Institute, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, and King & Spalding LLP asked the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upholding California’s decision to discriminate against the families on the basis of religion.
You can read the petition here.
“The Ninth Circuit declared the homes of these parents to be ‘public school programs’ in order to justify the state’s religious discrimination,” said Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel for First Liberty Institute. “Parents should not be punished for choosing quality religious curriculum meeting the state’s standard that they teach to their own children in their own home just because it’s religious.”
“Excluding parents from educational opportunities for their children solely because of religion isn’t just a textbook constitutional violation,” said Allyson Ho, co-chair of the Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Group at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. “It’s a real-world harm that falls most heavily on those least able to bear it like low-income parents, children with disabilities, and military families.”
“Every other parent in these programs gets to choose an academically appropriate curriculum with which to teach their own children,” stated Nicole Bronnimann, Senior Associate at King & Spalding. “California must allow our clients the option to use academically appropriate faith-based curricula that meets their needs.”
Some of California’s tuition-free charter schools offer “homeschool academy” or “independent study” programs that families may choose as an alternative to traditional classroom-based instruction. Families receive access to state funds they can use to purchase curricula, enrichment materials, and extracurricular activities. The parents choose their own curriculum and teach their own children at home—but they can’t select a religious curriculum, even if they purchase it with their own funds, and their children’s work samples are rejected if they include religious wording or derive from materials created by religious publishers. The district court and the Ninth Circuit rejected the families’ challenge to these discriminatory practices in prior rulings.
According to the petition, “California’s policy singles out parents who wish to give their children a faith-based education and excludes them from homeschooling benefits and support extended to other California families. That’s an open-and-shut Free Exercise violation…As three Members of this Court recently warned, the Ninth Circuit has ‘significantly misunderstood’ this Court’s Free Exercise precedents and needs a ‘general course correction.’ Mirabelli v. Bonta, 607 U.S. 492, 501 (2026) (Barrett, J., concurring). The decision below provides a much-needed opportunity to do just that and ensure that parents who most need educational alternatives for their children aren’t impermissibly denied those opportunities in violation of the Constitution’s religious liberty guarantees.”
# # #
About First Liberty Institute
First Liberty Institute is the largest legal organization in the nation dedicated exclusively to defending religious freedom for all Americans.
To arrange an interview, contact Natalie Konstans at media@firstliberty.org or by calling 972-941-4453.
