## Facts

- California enacted the Charter Schools Act of 1992 to permit a limited number of publicly funded charter schools with flexibility from many district rules, subject to statutory requirements and oversight.
- The Legislature later amended the Act through Assembly Bill 544, refining the charter school framework.
- Richard D. Wilson and Fernando Ulloa, county residents and taxpayers, filed a petition for writ of mandate to stop the State Board of Education from approving charters and spending public funds under the Act as amended.
- Plaintiffs asserted a facial constitutional challenge, alleging the charter scheme (a) created a separate public school system outside Article IX, (b) unlawfully delegated governmental educational authority to private actors involved in drafting and operating charters, and (c) risked sectarian control contrary to constitutional nonsectarian requirements.
- The superior court denied relief; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Charter Schools Act of 1992, as amended by AB 544, facially violates Article IX of the California Constitution by creating a separate school system or diminishing legislative/public control over public education.
2. Whether the statutory scheme constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative or educational authority to nongovernmental actors due to the operational autonomy given to charter operators.
3. Whether the statutes facially permit sectarian control or sectarian programs in violation of constitutional requirements that public schools be nonsectarian.
4. Whether plaintiffs met the burden for facial invalidation, as opposed to showing only possible unconstitutional applications.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the writ petition and upheld the constitutionality of the Charter Schools Act as amended.
- The court held charter schools authorized by the statutes are public schools within the state’s public school system, not a separate system.
- The court rejected the nondelegation challenge, concluding the Legislature provided standards and retained public oversight through approval, supervision, and revocation mechanisms.
- The court rejected the sectarian-control challenge on its face, relying on statutory nonsectarian requirements and enforcement authority in public entities.
- The court held that speculative unconstitutional applications did not justify facial invalidation.

## Legal Principles

- Under Article IX, the Legislature has broad authority to structure and administer public education unless constrained by an explicit constitutional limitation.
- A statutory program does not create an impermissibly separate public school system where schools operate under state authorization, receive public funds, and remain subject to public accountability and oversight.
- Delegation is permissible when the Legislature supplies adequate standards and safeguards and public officials retain effective supervisory authority, including approval and revocation power.
- Facial constitutional challenges require showing the statute is invalid in the generality of its applications; the possibility of unconstitutional applications typically raises as-applied issues.
- Statutory requirements that charter schools be nonsectarian, combined with public enforcement mechanisms, defeat a facial claim that the scheme authorizes sectarian control.

## Conclusion

The court upheld California’s charter school statutes against a facial constitutional attack, concluding that charter schools remain part of the public school system, the Legislature retained sufficient control through standards and oversight, and the statutes’ nonsectarian requirements precluded facial invalidity based on potential religious influence.


Wilson v. State Bd. of Educ., 75 Cal. App. 4th 1125, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 745 (Ct. App. 1999)