Summary of facts: Three Christian families in California, each of whom homeschool their children primarily because of their faith, tried to participate in homeschool aid programs operated by charter schools. The charter schools rejected their requests to participate because California laws prohibit the teaching of “sectarian” doctrine in public schools, including charter schools. These charter schools denied the families access to the funds and refused to credit work that includes references to God or comes from faith-based publishers. The families sued in federal court, alleging unconstitutional discrimination against religion in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. The district court dismissed the case, and a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed this decision. The families asked the full Ninth Circuit to reconsider that holding, but it refused. The plaintiffs are now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case.

RFI’s position: California demands that religious homeschooling families use secular curricula they do not want or lose state funding. That is a Free Exercise violation under the Supreme Court’s precedents. However, the Ninth Circuit avoided that conclusion by calling homeschooling a “public school program.” The implications of the lower court’s decision extend far beyond homeschooling. Permitting the government to exclude religion from any program by labeling it “public” invites states to exclude religion from charter schools, virtual academies, special-education placements, education savings accounts, and any other hybrid model that blends public funding with private choice, simply by structuring the program a certain way. If parents teaching their own children at home can be deemed a “public school program,” nothing is safe.

Read the brief here.