On September 11, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed what California law has long required: public schools, including charter schools, must remain secular. In Woolard v. Thurmond (No. 24-4291), parents sought to use state-funded charter school independent study programs to obtain religious curricula. The panel of Judges Andrew Hurwitz, Eric Miller, and Jennifer Sung held that when the state funds education, it controls the content, and that content must be secular.
The families had asked their schools to purchase materials such as Bob Jones University’s “Focus on Fives” and “The Good and the Beautiful,” both designed to integrate religious teaching into academic subjects. The schools refused, citing California’s constitutional prohibition on sectarian instruction and statutes requiring charter programs to remain nonsectarian.
The parents argued that independent study programs amounted to homeschooling, and therefore the state’s refusal violated the First Amendment. The court disagreed. Independent study remains subject to state standards, certified teachers, required testing, and school oversight. Instruction may happen at home, but the structure is public education.
On the Free Exercise claim, the panel relied on Carson v. Makin, distinguishing between public and private schooling. While the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot exclude religious schools from generally available private funding programs, it has not required states to incorporate religious content into their own schools. California retains the authority to insist on a secular curriculum.
On Free Speech, the claim collapsed quickly. The court noted that a school curriculum is government speech. When parents participate in state-funded programs, they are not creating private forums of expression; they are working within a state-defined system. Requiring secular content is not compelled speech, but the government setting the terms of its own message.
This dispute echoes earlier battles where religious groups sought to secure state support for sectarian aims. The line remains the same: belief is protected, subsidy is not. Public money pays for public education; private conviction remains a private responsibility.
For parents, the decision underscores a clear choice. They may join the charter system and accept secular requirements, or they may provide religious instruction independently. The court has reinforced that public programs will not be vehicles for sectarian teaching. The families may petition the Supreme Court, but unless it alters current doctrine, California’s charter schools will continue to operate under secular rules.
Case Caption:
John Woolard; Breanna Woolard; Hector Gonzales; Diana Gonzales; Carrie Dodson, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. Tony Thurmond; Michael Coleman; Kristin Blanco; Barry Lindaman; Breann Morse; Ted Destrampe; Rene Adamo; Melissa Bassanelli; Zima Creason; Pam Costa; Saul Hernandez; Ben Avey; Paula Villescaz; Tanya Kravchuk; Blue Ridge Academy; Samantha Haynes; Jessie Maron; Visions in Education Charter School; Brian Albright; Steve Olmos; Jennifer Morrison; Micah Studer; Mark Holman; Lisa Sophos, Defendants-Appellees.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case No.: 24-4291
Filed: September 11, 2025
Link to Opinion (PDF): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/09/11/24-4291.pdf
Tags: Ninth Circuit, California charter schools, Free Exercise Clause, Free Speech Clause, sectarian