CatholicVote urges Supreme Court to strike down restrictions on religious education funding

CatholicVote is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a California homeschooling case and strike down state constitutional restrictions that the organization says are rooted in anti-Catholic hostility and are discriminatory toward religious families.

CatholicVote’s Education Fund filed a friend-of-the-court brief Sept. 23 in support of the families in John Woolard et al. v. Tony Thurmond et al. The brief argues that California’s Blaine provisions violate religious freedom because of both their historical origins and their application today. 

The case involves families whose children participated in independent study programs through Blue Ridge Academy and Visions in Education, two California charter schools. 

California funds these independent study programs so parents can teach their children at home using curricula and materials they select. According to the families’ petition, charter school employees approve parent-directed purchases and periodically review students’ work for compliance with state academic standards.

The families say the charter schools denied funding and academic credit for their chosen curricula and materials solely because officials deemed them religious, even though they satisfied state academic standards. They argue that California cannot fund parent-directed homeschooling while excluding otherwise eligible faith-based materials.

According to court documents, the rejected materials include a Christian kindergarten curriculum requested by the Woolard family and “The Good and the Beautiful,” a faith-based curriculum another parent sought that emphasizes family, God, character, nature, and literature.

The schools cited state restrictions on religious education, including a constitutional provision known as a Blaine Amendment that prohibits public funding for sectarian schools and religious instruction in public schools. State law also requires charter school programs to remain nonsectarian.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the restrictions, concluding that the independent study programs constitute public education. It pointed to requirements that the programs meet state academic standards and operate under the supervision of certified teachers.

“The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause strictly prohibits excluding religious families from generally available public benefit programs,” Joshua Mercer, vice president of CatholicVote’s Education Fund, said in an Oct. 7 press release. “California cannot bypass the U.S. Constitution by denying equal benefit access to homeschool families that incorporate religious instruction into their children’s education. We urge the Supreme Court to repudiate Blaine Amendments once and for all. ”

CatholicVote’s brief argues that California cannot avoid constitutional protections for religious exercise by labeling the programs public schooling. It cites Supreme Court precedents protecting religious access to public benefits, including Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and Carson v. Makin.

The group also asks the court to examine the history behind Blaine Amendments, arguing that they arose from 19th-century hostility toward Catholic immigrants. According to the organization, the amendments helped preserve funding for public schools with Protestant religious instruction while excluding Catholic institutions. CatholicVote argues that those origins provide a separate basis for finding the restrictions unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 

In its release, CatholicVote said access to educational assistance is particularly important for religious families who cannot afford private school tuition and choose to teach their children at home. It notes that more than 3.4 million students are homeschooled across the U.S., and more than half of those families choose home education to provide religious instruction.

“Consigning Blaine Amendments to the dustbin of history is long overdue,” Mercer said in the release. “The Supreme Court should take this case to protect religious liberty, uphold parental rights, and ensure no family is discriminated against for educating their children in accordance with their faith.”

According to the court’s docket, responses to the families’ petition are due Oct. 23.