California Charter Schools

The State of California authorizes the creation of tuition-free charter schools under the jurisdiction of local school districts. Some of these charter schools offer “independent study” programs that families may elect to use for their children as an alternative to traditional classroom-based instruction. Families receive an account with state funds they can use to purchase curricula, materials, extracurricular activities, and individual classes at other schools, including private schools. The parents select the curriculum and teach their children, while the charter school provides support and confirms attendance records.

Due to state laws, however, the charter schools do not allow parents to use their fund to purchase curricula, materials, or classes if they are religious—or even from a religious publisher. Additionally, some schools enforce policies rejecting credit for coursework that originates from a religious curriculum or in which the student demonstrates a religious perspective.

The plaintiffs in this case—parents John and Breanna Woolard, Hector and Diana Gonzales, and Carrie Dodson—are devout Christians who are raising school-age children and whose Christian faith is central to their identity and worldview. Instilling that faith in their children, including through their education, is of the highest importance to them. Each family enrolled their children in a charter school but has suffered adverse consequences. These schools have restricted parents’ use of funds to purchase curricula and other instructional materials on the basis of religion, and some refused to accept or award credit for student work samples that reflect a child’s religious perspective. The Dodson family was expelled from its charter school because they selected a religious curriculum.

The actions from the state derive from policies in California’s Blaine Amendment and statutory provisions enforcing it, which prohibit the public purchase of “sectarian” materials. However, the U.S. Department of Education has long recognized the constitutional principle that public schools cannot reject a student’s work just because that student speaks from a religious viewpoint. The Supreme Court has repeatedly noted that Blaine Amendments arose from anti-Catholic bigotry. The Supreme Court also made clear in Carson v. Makin that excluding families from educational benefits because of their religious choices is unconstitutional.

First Liberty Institute and King & Spalding LLP filed a federal lawsuit challenging this unconstitutional religious discrimination. After hearing the case in April 2024, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit.  Attorneys appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit claiming unconstitutional religious discrimination in violation of the Free Exercise Clause, and unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in violation of the Free Speech Clause.

In June 2025, attorneys presented oral argument to the Ninth Circuit, challenging the unlawful California policies.

“We hope the Court recognizes our nation’s long tradition of respecting religion and applies First Amendment principles that prohibit singling religion out for disfavor,” said Alexander Kazam, Partner at King & Spalding, arguing the case pro bono on behalf of the homeschool families. “As the Supreme Court made clear in Carson v. Makin, when the government provides a benefit, like parent-directed educational funding, it cannot exclude families just because they choose to use that benefit for a religious education.”

“The Supreme Court has long recognized the constitutional principle that parents have a right to direct the religious upbringing of their children,” said Kayla Toney, Counsel for First Liberty. “Excluding families from educational benefits because of their religious choices is not only wrong, it’s unconstitutional.”