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. But in September of the same year, the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the lower court’s decision, blocking funding and even participation for families who choose faith-based curricula.

In response to this decision, First Liberty filed a petition for rehearing en banc at the Ninth Circuit in October 2025, asking a larger group of judges to review the decision. In March 2026, the petition for rehearing en banc was denied, with vigorous dissents by Judges Bumatay and VanDyke. Judge Bumatay, joined by four other judges on the Ninth Circuit, wrote that “[a]dhering to modest state requirements simply doesn’t transform parents teaching their children around the kitchen table with textbooks they choose into agents of the State providing ‘public school’ education.” Judge VanDyke’s dissent, joined by two other judges, concluded, “It’s about time we leave facially discriminatory Blaine Amendments on the ash heap of constitutional history.”

In August 2026, First Liberty, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, and King & Spalding filed a petition for certiorari to the US Supreme Court. The petition asks the Court to step in and correct the egregious religious discrimination that the Ninth Circuit has blessed. 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.

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.”