Woolard v. Thurmond

Woolard · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · September 11, 2025 · No. 24-4291

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by parents and guardians challenging the refusal of California charter schools to provide or permit sectarian curricular materials in independent study programs. The court held that the programs were sufficiently public to permit California to require secular curricula under the Free Exercise Clause. It also held that the charter schools’ curricula constituted government speech and therefore did not support a compelled-speech claim under the Free Speech Clause.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Andrew D. Hurwitz; Eric D. Miller; Jennifer Sung
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decision date
September 11, 2025
Docket number
24-4291
Procedural posture
Appeal from the dismissal of an operative 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim.
Standard of review
De novo review of an order granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Precedential value
Published and precedential Ninth Circuit opinion
Parties
John Woolard, Breanna Woolard, Hector Gonzales, Diana Gonzales, Carrie Dodson v. Tony Thurmond, Michael Coleman, Kristin Blanco, Barry Lindaman, Breann Morse, Ted Destrampe, Rene Adamo, Melissa Bassanelli, Zima Creason, Pam Costa, Saul Hernandez, Ben Avey, Paula Villescaz, Tanya Kravchuk, Blue Ridge Academy, Samantha Haynes, Jessie Maron, Visions in Education Charter School, Brian Albright, Steve Olmos, Jennifer Morrison, Micah Studer, Mark Holman, Lisa Sophos
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

free exercise clausefree speechsection 1983sovereign immunityappellate jurisdiction

Practice areas

constitutional laweducation lawcivil rightsappellate procedurereligious liberty

Questions Presented

  1. Whether California's independent-study programs at charter schools are sufficiently public that the State may condition participation and provision of curricular materials on the use of secular curricula without violating the Free Exercise Clause.
  2. Whether requiring parents in public charter-school independent-study programs to use state-approved, nonsectarian curricular materials constitutes compelled speech in violation of the Free Speech Clause.
  3. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars the claims against the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and Blue Ridge Academy.

Holdings

  1. Even assuming that the funding and curricular materials provided for independent-study programs constitute a generally available public benefit, California may condition participation in the public programs on parents' use of secular curricula because the programs are sufficiently public.
  2. Requiring parents to use state-approved, nonsectarian curricular materials in the charter schools' independent-study programs does not violate the Free Speech Clause because the curriculum is government speech.
  3. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar the claims against the State Superintendent or Blue Ridge Academy on the allegations and relief sought.

Key quotations

But even assuming that they are, the programs at issue in this case are sufficiently public to allow California to condition participation on parents’ use of secular curricula. (at 11)
When the University determines the content of the education it provides, it is the University speaking. (at 15)

Factual background

The plaintiffs' children were enrolled in independent-study programs at Blue Ridge Academy and Visions in Education, California charter schools. The plaintiffs requested that the schools purchase and permit the use of sectarian curricula, including Bob Jones University curricula, Bede's History of Me, and The Good and the Beautiful. The schools rejected the requests because California law prohibits sectarian or denominational instruction in common schools and requires charter-school programs to be nonsectarian.

Procedural history

Parents and guardians of students in independent-study programs at two California charter schools sued the schools, school officials, chartering authorities' officials, and the California Superintendent of Public Instruction. They alleged that the rejection of requests to use sectarian curricular materials violated the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses. The Eastern District of California dismissed the operative complaint for failure to state a claim, and the plaintiffs timely appealed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…