YOUR RIGHTS: Faith-Based Homeschool Curricula

  • Public Benefits Must Be Neutral: Under U.S. Supreme Court precedents like Carson v. Makin (2022) and Espinoza v. Montana (2020), states cannot exclude you from a public benefit (like homeschool funding) solely because of your "religious status" or because you choose a "religious use" for those funds.

  • The Worldview Protection: In the landmark Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) ruling, the Supreme Court held that schools cannot condition public education on a parent's willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise. If a curriculum "substantially interferes" with your child's religious development, you have a right to seek accommodations or opt-outs.

  • The Charter School Distinction: Be aware of Woolard v. Thurmond (2025). The Ninth Circuit recently ruled that some California charter schools can insist on secular materials because they are considered "government speech". However, this case is currently being challenged for en banc review, arguing it conflicts with Supreme Court precedent, because a parent in the privacy of their own home is not public speech.

  • Action Step: If your Public school homeschooling partner OR charter school denies a curriculum based on a “Christian worldview,” or “incidental scripture” with the pages of your curriculum that meets Oregon education standards- they must prove the denial is "neutral and generally applicable." If they allow other "niche" or "philosophical" worldviews but exclude yours, they may be engaging in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. For example, “Math-U-See” and “Juan is a Mermaid” are approved but a phonics book written by Abeka is not approved.

Legal Tracking: Protecting Faith-Based Education Funding

Current legal trends show the U.S. Supreme Court increasingly ruling that excluding religious options from generally available public programs is unconstitutional discrimination.

1. The Federal Precedents (The "Big Three")

These cases established that states cannot cite the "Separation of Church and State" to deny funds for religious education.

  • Carson v. Makin (2022): The Supreme Court ruled that Maine could not exclude religious schools from a tuition assistance program. Crucially, it clarified that states cannot discriminate based on how a school uses funds (e.g., for religious instruction).

  • Espinoza v. Montana (2020): Struck down a state ban on using tax-credit scholarships at religious schools, ruling that "status-based" discrimination violates the Free Exercise Clause.

  • Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (2017): Established that a religious organization cannot be excluded from a neutral government benefit (in this case, playground resurfacing) solely because it is a church.

2. Active "Homeschool Specific" Frontlines

These cases directly address the denial of faith-based curricula for homeschooling families.

  • Woolard v. Thurmond (California): Five Christian families filed a federal lawsuit after California charter schools refused to let them use state funds for curricula that included biblical verses or a faith-based worldview. In June 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments challenging these policies as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

  • Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025): The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that public schools must allow religious opt-outs for certain lessons. This strengthens the broader argument that the government cannot force parents to choose between a public benefit and their religious convictions.

3. State-Level Battles & Setbacks

  • Oklahoma (St. Isidore): In May 2025, the Supreme Court issued a 4-4 split decision, effectively blocking the nation’s first religious charter school from opening. While this specific effort failed, the split leaves the door open for future cases in other states.

  • South Carolina (ESTF Ruling): In September 2024, the state supreme court struck down a voucher program that included religious schools. However, the state legislature has since enacted a new law to bypass these restrictions.