Ninth Circuit Affirms the Authority (and Obligation) of Independent Study Charter Schools to Reject Sectarian Curriculum Materials

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court dismissal in Woolard v. Thurmond, No. 24-4291 (9th Cir. Sept. 11, 2025), rejecting First Amendment challenges brought by parents whose requests for sectarian curricular materials were denied by California charter schools. The plaintiffs, parents of students enrolled in independent study programs at California charter schools, sought to compel the schools to purchase curricula that explicitly included religious content. The charter schools refused these requests pursuant to California constitutional and statutory provisions prohibiting sectarian instruction in public schools, and the families sued, claiming a violation of the Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed the families’ case, and this dismissal was appealed to the Ninth Circuit. YMC represented one of the two charter schools sued.

The Ninth Circuit held that the charter schools’ independent study programs, despite offering curricular flexibility and home-based instruction, remain sufficiently public in nature to permit conditioning participation on secular curriculum requirements. In this regard, the Court noted that the status, attributes, and duties of independent study charter schools under California law are consistent with those features of public schools underscored in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Carson v. Makin. The Court thus rejected Appellants’ central argument that the schools, although “public schools” in name, were actually nothing more than vehicles for the delivery of generally available public benefits to private homeschooling students. On this basis, the Court distinguished the Supreme Court’s decisions in Carson, Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, and Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer.

Operational Impact for Charter Schools

This decision reinforces California charter schools’ authority to maintain secular educational programs while providing independent study options that offer significant curricular flexibility. California charter schools may continue offering parents substantial choice in selecting pre-existing curricula or creating customized educational approaches without running the risk of unwittingly transforming themselves into “private schools” or “public funding programs for private choice” for purposes of the Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses of the First Amendment. The decision also confirms the ongoing validity of the restrictions on sectarian education set forth in the California Constitution and the Education Code. The decision additionally confirms that California charter schools’ curricular decisions constitute government speech, providing protection against compelled speech challenges when an independent study charter school rejects proposed curricula inconsistent with its educational mission and legal obligations. It should be kept in mind, however, that this case involved families requesting the use of clearly religious curricula in which the teaching of religious doctrine was intertwined with the non-religious components of the curricula. In other words, the actual educational services to be provided were indisputably sectarian.

This case does not change the fact that, under recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, very significant Constitutional limitations apply to the ability of California charter schools (and U.S. public schools more generally) to exclude or treat differently those curricula providers (or other vendors) who have a religious identity or affiliation but who are offering fully non-sectarian products and services. As before, to exclude a vendor of non-sectarian products or services merely out of a concern that public funding should not be transferred to an entity with a sectarian identity or affiliation could violate the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court. We understand that this distinction is not always so clear in practice, and recommend you reach out to your legal counsel should you have concerns about particular situations.

Download Legal Alert

For specific questions regarding this legal alert, please contact Kevin Troy [email protected] or call 916.646.1400.: