Summer is over, and with children returning to school it is an appropriate time to reflect upon the right (and yes, duty) of parents to educate their children in the faith.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes this right as "fundamental," and admonishes parents to choose "schools that will best help them in their task as Christian educators."

Unfortunately, parents with children in public schools will get less help, thanks to a seriously mistaken ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals, the second highest court in the land, handed down in late August.

A group of students in the state of Washington calling themselves "Truth" sought to have an after-school Bible study "to encourage and help [students] become better people with good morals." For over two years, their public high school bounced their application around only to unanimously deny it in the end.

Why? Because the students described membership in terms of faith. While anyone, indeed everyone in the school community, was permitted to attend the meetings, to be a member in good standing was contingent upon aspiring to "Christian character, Christian speech and the Christian conduct generally described in the Bible." The point, said the students, was that members should have "a true desire to grow in a relationship with Jesus Christ."

The school decision-makers in Washington didn't like that notion and for good measure told the students they didn't like the club name either. Truth be damned, I guess.

Bible Club permission denied. Of course, these same authorities had no trouble approving an Earth Club, limited to members who would promise to show an "interest and dedication toward environmental issues." And the school even found room for a gay-straight alliance limited to students exploring a full discussion of "gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and other questioning issues" and "fighting heterosexism and other forms of oppression."

The student founders of Truth got legal help, but embarrassingly they have thus far lost in court. How they lost is a bit of a mystery given the plain text of laws aimed, like the school district's own policies, at affirming --- on paper at least --- "equal opportunity and treatment ... without regard to race, creed, etc."

There's even a federal law, the Equal Access Act, which mandates that public schools grant religious clubs the benefits and privileges afforded other non-curricular clubs. Congress' purpose was to guarantee "equal access or fair opportunity" and to prevent discrimination on the basis of "the content of the speech in club meetings."

Nevertheless, paying little heed to this important law intended to be "interpreted broadly," the Ninth Circuit (which hears cases from the entire Western United States) found nothing wrong with the denial. Denying permission for a club based on religious membership criteria was not, said the judges, to discriminate in terms of content of speech.

Really?

Bafflingly, the judges claimed that the students failed to show how limiting membership to those who would share Christian values had "any expressive conduct content, let alone [how] this policy communicates a message consistent with the views of the club's organizers."

This is flawed reasoning. Thankfully, another federal appellate court has taken a directly opposite view, upholding under the law the ability of a religious club in a New York high school to limit club leadership positions to "professed Christians."

When the same law is interpreted in two different ways, it warrants Supreme Court resolution. The Roberts court should be open to the Washington students if they appeal, and in all likelihood, would reverse.

Of course generations of students will have graduated in the meantime, and it's troubling to have to drag public schools into court for reasonable religious accommodation.

This is hardly what the catechism had in mind when it enjoins upon "public authorities ... the duty of guaranteeing to parents the right to choose a school for their children which corresponds to their own faith convictions."

Catholic News Service columnist Douglas W. Kmiec is Caruso Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University, Malibu.