California Schools, Parental Opt-Outs, and a Pending Emergency Application

On January 21, 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed his response to the emergency application, and nine amicus briefs landed within a two-day window. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a coalition of states led by Florida, Montana, and West Virginia, and several other organizations each submitted separate filings urging the Court to act. That volume of amicus participation at the application stage is notable and reflects the intensity of interest in the underlying dispute.

The case arises from a challenge by California parents, represented by Paul Michael Jonna and others including attorneys from the Becket Fund, to California’s refusal to permit religious opt-outs from certain school curriculum requirements. The Ninth Circuit ruled against the parents, and they now seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court while the litigation continues below.

The legal questions implicate the Free Exercise Clause, substantive due process, and parental rights. The core issue is whether a state may deny religiously motivated opt-out requests from curriculum exposure without running afoul of Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah or the parental rights doctrine traced to Pierce v. Society of Sisters. The state-coalition amicus brief from Florida and its co-signers signals that this dispute has become a focal point in broader debates over educational policy and religious accommodation.

The Court has not yet distributed the application for conference. Whether a single Justice acts unilaterally or the application is referred to the full Court will be an early signal of how seriously the Justices view the underlying claims. Observers interested in the intersection of religious liberty and public education should watch this docket closely. SCOTUSblog has tracked related parental-rights litigation that may inform how the Court frames any eventual merits review.