PARENTS SUE CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

     On October 12, 2023, a group of Christian-identifying parents filed a lawsuit against the State of California for religious discrimination in publicly funded charter schools. The challenged statute at the center of this legal dispute is a state policy that authorizes the creation of tuition-free charter schools paid for by the taxes collected from California citizens. The charter schools provide opportunities for there to be an "independent study" program in which families can elect for their children to be taught in a classroom-alternate way, such as homeschooling. The families that participate in this program are given access to state funds to purchase materials necessary for the curriculum or extra-curricular activities. The instructors are to be the parents under this policy and it is the job of the charter school to provide support and confirm attendance. The overall goal of this educational policy is to "provide [opportunities] for families to educate their children in a way that fits the families' needs." The state policy makes clear; however, that it is up to the discretion of the parents to select the curriculum. One of the few restrictions that the charter school policy imposes is that participating families are not allowed to use state funds for religious instruction. The schools will even go as far as denying credit for religious instruction. It is these restrictions that the plaintiffs in the case have issue with that form the basis of their legal argument. The groups of parents suing the State of California argue that they should not be discriminated against in their access to public funds simply because they prefer a religious instruction pathway. Their Christian faith is considered critical to their identity and view of the world. With all this in mind, is the educational policy imposed by the State of California a discriminatory violation of the families' First Amendment rights to freedom of religion? 

    This particular case is complicated when keeping in mind the new ideological direction of the predominately conservative Supreme Court. In a 2022 decision, the Justices ruled in Carson v. Makin that "when the government provides a benefit, like parent-directed educational funding, it cannot exclude families just because they chose to use that benefit for religious education." This relatively new decision issued by the Court is the main line of reasoning used by the plaintiffs in this case. However, it is essential to consider the prior historical precedents issued by the Court that have been the law of the land for decades. One example that comes to mind immediately is the  Zorach case. In this particular Supreme Court case, a New York City policy allowing students to be excused from the classroom early for religious instruction per parental consent was challenged on whether it promoted the establishment of religion. The appellants of the case argued that this particular policy undermined the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in that the State was promoting a group of religions by allowing children to be excused from secular educational duties. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York City public schools in that allowing religious instruction in the lives of students was permissible as long as public taxes were not used to support such practice. Since the students were not engaging in religious activity within the public school classrooms, there was no violation of the Establishment Clause per the majority of the Court. Justice Douglas - in his opinion - stated that it was different than the McCollum case in that publicly funded resources were not being used. I believe that these two historical precedents provide ample evidence for the correct outcome from the judiciary in this charter school case. 

    If I were a judge hearing the facts of this case, I would rule in favor of the State of California and assert that there is no evidence of religious discrimination in this particular case. As per the Establishment Clause, "Congress [and the State] shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (U.S. Constitution). For Congress or the States to respect the establishment of religion, it would require them to authorize the use of tax-payer funds for religious organizations. This would include allowing religious indoctrination to be allowed within the publicly funded educational system of the state. The facts of the case are quite clear: the charter school program is funded using public tax revenue. The resources collected from the general public cannot be used for the promotion of one, some, or any religious faith. The educational system has long been a secular institution and steers clear of religious teachings. It is within the duty of the federal or state governments to ensure a neutrality of religious practices in society. The facts of this case do not insinuate any restrictions on religious freedom. These families and students can practice their religious views within their respective organizations. The State of California is in no way restricting the families' right to worship. The State is simply asserting that public funds cannot be used for the expansion of religious indoctrination. Therefore, the Courts should side with the State of California. 

Case Link for Blog Post: https://firstliberty.org/cases/california-charter-schools/#simple2

*Link to Official Complaint: https://firstliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/CA-Charters-Complaint_Redacted.pdf

*Also utilized Munioz Religious Liberty and the American Supreme Court