EdChoice Urges Supreme Court to Review California Religious Freedom Case

This week, EdChoice Legal Advocates (EdLA) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, expressing support for religious families seeking to use faith-based curricula in California’s independent study program.

In Woolard v. Thurmond, several religious parents are petitioning for review of their legal challenge involving California’s independent study program. In this program, California funds education where parents instruct their children in their homes using curricula and materials parents themselves select. The program also involves significant regulation and supervision by a local public school or charter school teacher. When parents participate in this program, California prohibits them from using religious materials even if those materials otherwise meet the State’s academic standards.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the parents’ First Amendment claims. It concluded that state funding and regulation made the parents’ instruction part of a “public school program” in all its activities and converted parents talking to (i.e., instructing) their own children into government speech.

On September 23, EdChoice filed an amicus brief supporting the parents and urging the Supreme Court to review the case. The brief argued that the Ninth Circuit’s decision confused state oversight of the program with the actual provision of instruction.

“The Ninth Circuit was wrong to construe parents’ instruction of their own children in their own home as government action,” EdLA wrote in its brief for the Court. “The relevant activity in this case is instruction, and in the independent study program, parents provide the instruction. The state establishes requirements for the program and supervises compliance, but it does not instruct students.”

EdLA also addressed California’s arguments about excluding religious education based on quality requirements. “The purpose of state standards is to ensure that a student learns subjects like reading, writing, and arithmetic at the appropriate depth and level of proficiency,” EdLA wrote. “Treating religious content as inherently deficient offends free exercise standards and traditions.” EdLA also pointed to research demonstrating the commonsense understanding that religious education is compatible with strong academic and civic outcomes.

EdLA’s brief also explained why Woolard presents a distinct question from St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, another religious freedom case pending before the Supreme Court where EdLA supported the Petitioners. In EdLA’s view, both St. Mary and Woolard concern efforts by states like California to circumvent the Supreme Court’s decision in Carson v. Makin, which held that states may not exclude religious participants from education programs. St. Mary concerns Colorado’s restrictions on beliefs about gender and sexuality in its universal preschool program, which effectively excluded religious providers. Woolard concerns whether a state can use regulation and supervision to transform private instruction into government education, which is an alternative method of excluding religious providers. The brief explained that “If California’s method of prohibiting religious instruction is permitted to stand, States like Colorado and Maine will have yet another path around Carson, regardless of the result in St. Mary.”

The petition is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, which will decide whether to hear the case.

This dispute is important for all religious families: parents should be able to teach their children in accordance with their faith while meeting the same academic requirements that apply to other participating families. EdChoice believes families should not have to choose between educational opportunity and religious freedom. We will continue working to ensure that educational options respect the constitutional rights of religious families.