Questions & answers · Updated September 7, 2026
Frequently asked questions
Since this lawsuit was filed on August 7, 2026, it has drawn national and international coverage and a great deal of commentary — some of it accurate, some of it not. This FAQ sets out what happened, what the law requires, and what we are asking the Palo Alto Unified School District to do.
Our position is straightforward. Public schools may teach students about religion. They may not promote one faith over others, and they may not encourage students to take part in religious practice. That is the bedrock constitutional principle of separating Church and State. The principle protects all of us and our respective faiths — Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian — and those of no faith at all.
What laws are at issue?
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and Article I, § 4 of the California Constitution. Government — including a public school district — may not promote or favor a particular religion. Faith is a matter for individuals and families, not for the State.
Other constitutional provisions at issue include those preventing compelled speech and those assuring equal protection and privacy, along with numerous California laws prohibiting discrimination and assuring privacy.
What is this case about?
Public schools have two obligations that sit side by side. They must remain neutral among religions. And when they teach students about religion, they must do so in an objective, academically appropriate way.
PAUSD violated both obligations. It presented one religion as uniquely aligned with the values of the school and its curriculum, and it encouraged students to take part in that religion’s customs, rituals, or practices:
First, the design of the program. The Social Justice Pathway selected a mosque as the single house of worship associated with its social justice curriculum. No comparable engagement with any other faith was offered. Presenting one religion — and only one — as the faith connected to social justice does not teach students about religion. It prefers a religion, in the District’s voice.
Second, the conduct of the trip. The visit went beyond instruction. Students were offered religious garments and encouraged to wear them, were given Qurans to take home, observed prayer, and took part in activities tied to religious practice. That is devotional participation.
What specifically happened on the field trip?
On a school-sponsored trip in the fall of 2025, students in Palo Alto High School’s Social Justice Pathway visited the Muslim Community Association in Santa Clara. According to the complaint, students:
- Were provided religious attire, including hijabs, and encouraged to wear it;
- Were given Qurans to take home;
- Observed Muslim prayer;
- Interacted with participants in a Quran-memorization program;
- Were photographed, including in religious attire; and
- Received messaging presenting Islam as particularly connected to social justice — a substantial portion of it delivered by an outside political speaker.
As we have discovered, this is at least the third year in which the Social Justice Pathway has featured the mosque in this sort of field trip.
What is wrong with a field trip to a mosque?
There is a difference between studying a religion as part of an academic program and presenting a religion as the one aligned with that program. PAUSD may teach comparative religion. It may teach religion in historical context. It may take students to houses of worship.
What it may not do is designate one faith as the curriculum’s moral exemplar, take students exclusively to that faith’s house of worship, and encourage devotional participation while there. That is not education about religion. It is advocacy for one, paid for by the public and delivered to a captive audience of minors.
How is this different from visiting a California Mission?
The Mission visit emphasizes history, while the SJP mosque visit emphasizes faith.
PAUSD devotes fourth grade to California history — the District’s own curriculum calls it “California: A Changing State.” Students may visit Missions to learn about Spanish colonization, Native American history, architecture, and the role religion played in the State’s development. The Missions are not active parish schools of instruction, and students do not participate in Catholic ritual. No one hands them a rosary to take home or encourages them to receive a sacrament.
Who is Zahra Billoo, and why is she mentioned in this case?
Zahra Billoo is an attorney and the Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, San Francisco Bay Area (CAIR-SFBA), headquartered in Santa Clara. She met and addressed the students at the Muslim Community Association. She is not MCA staff, and she is not a religious leader or educator. She is a political advocate who has described mainstream Jewish civic and religious organizations, including college Hillels, synagogues, the Jewish Federation, and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), as adversaries of social justice, specifically calling them “enemies” of those who advocate for the Black Lives Matter movement and police accountability, and of those who work to eliminate homelessness and poverty.1
Is keeping religious practice out of public schools “Islamophobic”?
It is not “Islamophobic” to oppose “Islamopreference.” The principle we are asking the District to apply is the same principle that keeps a public school from leading students in Christian prayer, distributing Bibles, or presenting Judaism as the curriculum’s preferred faith. Separation of Church and State is not hostility to religion. It is the arrangement that protects every faith — including Islam — from government preference and government pressure.
What is the issue with parental permission and photography?
The parental permission slips falsely suggested an academic trip. Parents consented to an educational field trip to the Muslim Community Association; they were not advised that this was a trip to encourage devotion to the Islamic faith and that their children would be photographed and advertised by the mosque to promote conversion.
Why aren’t more students and parents complaining?
High school is not an environment that rewards dissent. Students are young, they depend on the acceptance of their classmates, and few adolescents are willing to invite the disapproval of a peer group or teacher they cannot walk away from at the end of the day.
Parents of current students face a quieter version of the same problem. Their children will be in these schools for years — taught, graded, counseled, and recommended by the same institution. A parent does not need to believe the District would retaliate in order to prefer not to find out. Many have told us they share our concerns but would rather raise them privately, or wait until all their children have graduated.
That reluctance does not fall on one side of the issue. Nearly every student and family connected to the trip has asked to remain anonymous — including those who see nothing objectionable in what happened. Whatever their views, they would rather not be identified.
That is why the Plaintiffs bring this action as a community.
What are you asking the District to do?
- Education, not advocacy. Students may learn about religious practices. They may not be invited, encouraged, or pressured — directly or indirectly — to take part in or adopt them.
- Equality, not preference. PAUSD may teach about Islam. It cannot promote it.
- We are asking for a court order that what has happened violates the law and should not happen again. We are not asking the District to pay damages to anyone.
Can I join the lawsuit?
We are actively seeking additional plaintiffs: Bay Area individuals and families who share these concerns are encouraged to contact our counsel to learn whether they may be eligible. Interested individuals throughout the country may also provide crucial help.
Contact David Rosenberg-Wohl, counsel for Plaintiffs: [email protected]
How else can I help?
This case is expensive and is not financed by any organization. To learn how to contribute toward costs, please contact counsel at [email protected].
Press inquiries
David Rosenberg-Wohl, counsel for Plaintiffs — [email protected]
The allegations described here are set out in the complaint filed August 7, 2026, and have not yet been adjudicated.