More Than 125 N.C. Faith Leaders Ask Stein and Legislators to Repeal Budget Rule That Makes Schools Excuse Students for Off-Campus Religious Classes

Eleven weeks into a law, 125 clergy ask for its repeal

On Oct. 6, more than 125 North Carolina clergy and faith leaders sent a letter to Gov. Josh Stein and the General Assembly. They asked lawmakers to remove a rule that makes public schools excuse students for religious classes held off campus^[1]. The signers wrote that they "do not support including religious instruction during the school day"^[1].

The rule isn't a proposal. It became law on July 7, 2026, when Stein signed a state budget of about $34 billion. That was the state's first full spending plan since 2023^[2][12]. So the letter is a call for repeal, not a plea before a vote. Only a new act of the legislature can undo it.

Districts aren't waiting. Wake County's school board adopted a policy to comply, and so did Cumberland and others^[4][18]. The classes are expected to begin this school year.

What the law actually requires

The law covers "released time" religious instruction. That means students leave school during the day, with an excused absence, to attend religious classes somewhere else. Every district must allow at least one hour a week. It may allow up to four^[4][5].

The classes must be off campus and privately run. No district money pays for them, and students get no school credit. A parent must give written permission^[4][6]. Students can't miss core classes or state tests, and parents arrange transport and prove attendance^[6]. Teachers must let students make up missed work^[4][5].

One Wake board member did the math on the minimum. One hour a week adds up to about 39 hours a year, roughly a school week^[4]. Many districts chose that one-hour minimum^[4][18].

How "may" became "shall"

The idea began as Senate Bill 92, the "Released Time Education Act," filed in February 2025. That bill let each school board decide whether to allow such programs^[3][13]. It then languished^[3].

In June 2026, Sen. Brad Overcash (R-Gaston) added mandatory language to a K-12 education bill. The language took away the boards' option to say no^[3]. It then rode into the budget. That package also carried teacher raises, tax cuts and Hurricane Helene relief^[2][12][16]. Opposing one provision meant picking a fight over all of it.

Underneath sits a split between local control and state mandate. Wake's board approved its policy "under protest," 6-1^[8][4]. Board members objected to the order but followed it. This is a dispute about who decides, as much as about religion.

The case for the mandate

Supporters start with the parent. In their view, a family should decide whether a child spends an hour on religious teaching. A school board shouldn't be able to veto that choice. Making the option universal, they say, treats families the same in every county^[7][11].

Overcash made three points. The programs are voluntary. They require parental approval. They cost districts nothing^[3]. Alliance Defending Freedom, which backs similar laws in other states, has said such laws respect "parents' educational decisions"^[7].

Supporters also rely on a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case, Zorach v. Clauson. The Court held that letting students leave school for off-campus religious instruction doesn't violate the Establishment Clause. That is the First Amendment's bar on government establishing religion^[3].

There is a movement behind this, too. LifeWise Academy, an Ohio-based group that runs Bible classes during school hours, has lobbied for such laws. It says it offers classes in over 300 public schools across 11 states^[10][14]. The conservative group ALEC publishes a model bill^[11]. LifeWise is preparing a class for first and second graders at a Wake County elementary school^[4].

The case for repeal

The signers argue that religious freedom is best protected when the state stays out of religious teaching. In their view, a state order that pulls children out of the school day for religious classes breaks that rule. They say it violates the Constitution^[1]. The letter, as reported, cites no specific constitutional provision^[1].

They also make an argument as people of faith. A church doesn't need the government's school calendar to teach children. Mixing the two, they say, can harm both faith and public education^[1]. Many hold church-state separation as a matter of faith. That is especially true of Baptists^[15].

Their legal point is narrow. Zorach says districts may allow released time. It doesn't say the state may force every district to. Local opponents in Durham and Wake add that the classes create an awkward divide inside classrooms and take time from teachers^[9][8][15].

The letter has no binding force. The signers need the Republican-led legislature to act. Stein signed the budget as a compromise. He said lawmakers "accepted many of my big-ticket budget recommendations." He also called parts of it "unconstitutional and petty," without singling out this rule in the coverage reviewed^[2][12]. That coverage shows no public reply from him to the letter.

Same law, different headlines

The framing split shows in the headlines. Good Faith Media, a progressive Baptist-rooted outlet, wrote about "Religious Instruction in Schools"^[1]. That phrase can suggest classes on campus, which the law doesn't allow. Its piece gives the signers' view and no supporter response.

Stateline, from the States Newsroom network, headlined its story on "the right" to school-day religious instruction. That echoes supporters' language, though the body includes critics and LifeWise's funding^[7]. NC Newsline, in the same network, ran a plain headline. Its story noted the 1952 ruling and how the provision skipped a standalone hearing^[3].

WUNC and The News & Observer covered the districts. WUNC's headline said Wake was acting "to comply with state law." The N&O led with "Under protest"^[4][8]. A Wake Weekly opinion piece asked whether we "still believe in the separation of church and state"^[15]. That question assumes the law breaches the line, which the 1952 precedent complicates.

A search turned up no national or non-U.S. coverage of the letter. The open question is whether lawmakers who wrote the mandate into the budget will take it back out.