California parents take homeschool faith case to Supreme Court

Three California families have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a First Amendment challenge to State rules that bar religious curricula from public charter school independent-study programs.

The families filed their petition Thursday in Woolard v. Thurmond, asking the high court to reverse a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case pits California's rules for its tuition-free charter schools against the parents' right to freely exercise their religion.

The dispute centers on independent-study programs run by Blue Ridge Academy and Visions in Education Charter School. Parents enrolled in the programs teach their children at home and have wide latitude in choosing books, curricula and other educational material. The charter schools provide funds for approved materials and oversee student progress.

California, however, requires the programs to remain nonsectarian. The families say that rule resulted in books, curricula and even student work being rejected solely because they contained religious content.

The parents — John and Breanna Woolard, Hector and Diana Gonzales, and Carrie Dodson — are represented by First Liberty Institute, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and King & Spalding LLP.

“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.”

The case began after the families sought to use faith-based educational material while taking part in the charter school programs.

Court records show one family was denied the use of works by colonial-era figures William Penn and Jonathan Edwards because of their religious content. Another student's grammar work was rejected because it included the sentence, “God sends the rain to help plants grow.” A school official said the program could not accept work samples containing religious wording.

Another family sought to use The Good and the Beautiful, a faith-based curriculum. According to court records, a school employee said the curriculum “sounds amazing,” but the school would not approve faith-based material.

“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.”

A federal district court dismissed the families' lawsuit in June 2024. A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel upheld that ruling in September 2025 and issued an amended opinion in March.

The Ninth Circuit found that the programs are part of California's public education system, despite the instruction taking place in the students' homes. The court said the extensive State rules that govern the programs make them public school programs. California may therefore require the instruction provided through them to remain secular, the panel held.

Five Ninth Circuit judges dissented when the full court declined to rehear the case. Judge Patrick Bumatay argued that State oversight does not turn parents teaching their children at home into agents of the State.

The Supreme Court petition frames the case as part of a wider dispute over whether a State may make a public benefit available to families but exclude religious choices from that benefit.

The families point to a line of Supreme Court rulings, including Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and Carson v. Makin. In those cases, the court held that States generally may not exclude otherwise eligible people or institutions from public benefit programs because of their religious status or use of the funds.

The petition argues California is doing much the same thing by providing money and support for parent-selected home instruction while withholding those benefits when parents choose religious material.

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.”

The petition also argues that the Ninth Circuit's approach conflicts with rulings from other federal appeals courts and could allow governments to sidestep religious liberty protections simply by labeling a benefit or activity “public.” The families say the two independent-study programs at issue serve more than 15,000 students.

Justice Elena Kagan had granted the families an extension to file their petition through Aug. 20. Supreme Court records confirm the case reached the court after the Ninth Circuit's March 23 denial of rehearing.

The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will hear the case.