California Forces Christian Schools To Make Christian Education Optional – ACLJ Fights Back at Supreme Court

The ACLJ has filed a vital amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and correct a dangerous Ninth Circuit decision that threatens religious liberty, parental rights, and church autonomy across the country.

At issue is a California regulation that requires religious schools to allow children to opt out of religious services and activities – and to post and distribute state-mandated notices advertising that so-called “right.” The Ninth Circuit upheld this mandate, opening the door for government bureaucrats to interfere directly in how religious schools teach children in the faith.

The Constitution does not allow such interference. Take action with the ACLJ and add your name to the petition: Defeat the Left’s War Against Christians.

Government Control of Religious Formation

Religious schools exist for a reason: to educate children within a coherent faith tradition. As the ACLJ explains in its brief, the Supreme Court has long recognized that religious institutions have constitutional autonomy over matters central to their faith and mission – including education and spiritual formation.

In landmark cases like Hosanna-Tabor and Our Lady of Guadalupe, where we also filed in support of religious liberty, the Court made clear that the First Amendment protects a religious school’s authority over who teaches the faith. That protection necessarily extends to what is taught and how it is taught. If the government cannot dictate who conveys the faith, it cannot dictate the content or structure of religious formation.

Yet California’s scheme does exactly that. By forcing religious schools to treat worship and religious practice as optional, the state inserts itself into the heart of religious education – something the Constitution squarely forbids.

Ignoring Parents’ Constitutional Rights

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling is also in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which reaffirmed that parents have a fundamental right to direct the religious upbringing of their children.

In Mahmoud, the Court held that government policies substantially burden parental rights when they interfere with children’s religious development. That principle applies with even greater force here. Parents who enroll their children in religious schools do so precisely because they want religious formation to be an integral part of their education – not an optional add-on.

California’s regulation undermines that choice. It conditions access to licensed religious education on surrendering the very religious character parents seek. As the ACLJ argues, parents do not waive their constitutional rights simply by choosing religious education.

Unconstitutional Entanglement With Religion

The regulation also creates impermissible government entanglement with religion. State inspectors must determine whether children feel “free” to opt out of religious activities – forcing officials to evaluate religious practices, communal worship, and spiritual formation. That kind of inquiry requires theological judgments that the government has no authority or competence to make.

The Establishment Clause exists precisely to prevent this kind of intrusive oversight.

Forced Speech That Violates the First Amendment

Finally, the ACLJ brief explains that California’s notice requirement violates the First Amendment’s prohibition on compelled speech. Under NIFLA v. Becerra, the government may not force organizations to convey messages that are controversial or contradict their mission.

Requiring a religious school to advertise that children have the right to opt out of religious services is neither neutral nor uncontroversial. It compels the school to promote a view of religious autonomy that directly conflicts with its faith-based mission – just as California once tried to force pregnancy centers to promote abortion.

The Constitution does not allow the state to turn religious institutions into mouthpieces for government ideology.

Why Supreme Court Review Is Critical

If allowed to stand, the Ninth Circuit’s decision would give states sweeping power to reshape religious education, override parental authority, and force religious institutions to contradict their own beliefs.

That is why the ACLJ has urged the Supreme Court to grant review, reverse the Ninth Circuit, and restore the constitutional boundaries that protect religious liberty, parental rights, and church autonomy for future generations.

Take action with the ACLJ and add your name to the petition: Defeat the Left’s War Against Christians.