Appeals court rules 3-0 in favor of funding for disabled students at Jewish schools
Judges say state’s attempt to exclude religious schools requires ‘strict scrutiny’

A California law prohibiting certain public disability education funds from being used at religious schools cannot be enforced, a panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled Monday.
The decision in Loffman v. California Department of Education is a win for three sets of Orthodox Jewish parents, their children and two Jewish schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Under California law, private schools can receive certification for students to get funding for certain special-education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a law known as IDEA that authorizes federal funds administered by the states. The panel ruled 3-0 that a provision allowing certification only for “nonsectarian” schools violated the parents’ and students’ rights under the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment.
The 3-0 decision was written by Kim Wardlaw, who was appointed to the appeals court by Bill Clinton. Signing on to the opinion were Morgan Christen, a Barack Obama appointee; and Mark Bennett, who was appointed by Donald Trump.
The parents had said in their lawsuit that enrolling their children in Jewish schools was “virtually mandatory” under their Orthodox Jewish beliefs. Because of the expenses and services offered, two of the parents said they had decided to send their child to a public school, but that created “unique difficulties” because of absences for religious holidays and as well as problems receiving kosher food. Two of the other parents that sent their child to a Jewish school said their child could not receive full services there because of the expense involved.
Writing for the panel, Wardlaw ruled that while the state has an interest in maintaining neutrality with respect to religion, it must do so in that doesn’t interfere with the rights of parents and students. The court’s summary of the decision said:
The California statute on its face burdens the free exercise rights of parents because it prohibits parents from advocating for a sectarian placement. Because the nonsectarian requirement is not neutral to religion, strict scrutiny applied. The panel concluded that the State Appellee failed to demonstrate that California’s nonsectarian requirement satisfies the applicable strict scrutiny standard of review. Even if a compelling interest in neutrality could be demonstrated, the nonsectarian requirement was not narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
The parents and schools were represented by attorneys with the Becket law firm, known for its advocacy in a wide range of religious-freedom cases. Becket’s senior counsel, Eric Rassbach, praised the ruling:
This is a massive win for Jewish families in California. It was always wrong to cut Jewish kids off from getting disability benefits solely because they want to follow their faith. The court did the right thing by ruling against California’s bald-faced discrimination.
The decision is subject to appeal to the full appeals court or to the U.S. Supreme Court. There has been no indication whether the school district or the state will seek a new ruling. They have 90 days to appeal.