In 1992, California authorized the creation of charter schools as part of its public school system. These schools may operate non-classroom-based independent study programs, in which parents provide instruction at home under the supervision of state-certified teachers. To participate, parents must sign written agreements specifying objectives, study methods, and evaluation standards, and the schools provide the necessary curricular materials.
John and Breanna Woolard, Hector and Diana Gonzales, and Carrie Dodson enrolled their children in independent study programs at charter schools Blue Ridge Academy (Blue Ridge) and Visions in Education (Visions). Blue Ridge operates under the chartering authority of the Maricopa Unified School District, while the San Juan Unified School District charters Visions.
The parents asked the schools to purchase religious curricula for use in those programs. The Woolards requested that Blue Ridge purchase Bob Jones University’s Focus on Fives, a “worldview shaping” kindergarten curriculum that teaches, “God is great, and God is good; God created me and all things; the Bible is God’s Word, and it is true; and I learn in order to serve God and others.” The Gonzaleses requested a similar Bob Jones University curriculum. The Gonzaleses and the Woolards also asked Blue Ridge to purchase Bede’s History of Me, a book designed to introduce timelines while teaching “how God works in time.” Dodson asked Visions to purchase The Good and the Beautiful, a “faith-based curriculum” that emphasizes “family, God, high character, nature, and wholesome literature.” The schools denied the requests, citing California’s constitutional and statutory requirements that public schools, including charter schools, be nonsectarian.
The parents sued the charter schools, their officials, the chartering school districts, and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. They claimed that the refusal to purchase religious materials violated the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution by excluding them from a generally available public benefit. They also claimed it violated the Free Speech Clause by compelling them to use only secular curricula.
The defendants argued that charter schools are public schools subject to California’s constitutional mandate to provide secular education. They argued that curriculum decisions are government speech, not subject to First Amendment challenge. The federal district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. It ruled that charter schools may provide only secular education, that plaintiffs were not excluded from any generally available public benefit, and that curriculum choices are government speech. The parents appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Ninth Circuit first addressed the Free Exercise Clause claim. It noted recent Supreme Court decisions holding that states cannot deny generally available public benefits based on religious status or use. However, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that California’s independent study programs remain part of the public school system, not private homeschooling. Like other public schools, these programs must accept students without tuition, meet detailed state curricular standards, administer state assessments, and operate under the supervision of certified teachers. Because of these requirements, the Ninth Circuit held that the independent study programs are “sufficiently public” to permit California to require secular curricula without violating the Free Exercise Clause.
The Ninth Circuit then analyzed the Free Speech Clause claim. The parents argued that selecting curricula for their children was private speech and that forcing them to rely on state-approved secular materials compelled them to endorse messages contrary to their beliefs. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument, holding that the curriculum is government speech because it expresses the educational policy of the public schools. The Ninth Circuit explained that curriculum decisions remain government speech even when parents deliver instruction at home and even if schools allow some parental choice. Because government speech is not subject to the Free Speech Clause scrutiny, plaintiffs failed to state a claim.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint.
Woolard v. Thurmond (9th Cir. Sep. 11, 2025, No. 24-4291).