A group of Jewish parents petitioned a federal court Monday to block a California law that prohibits education funding for children with disabilities from going to religious private schools, even though secular private schools are eligible.

The group of parents, which sought to use Individuals with Disabilities Education Act funding at an Orthodox Jewish school, filed a lawsuit against the state in March, arguing that a state law excluding religious schools from the program was discriminatory. On Monday, the group, which is represented by attorneys from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, petitioned a Los Angeles federal court to block the law while litigation continues.

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT TIM SCOTT AHEAD OF HIS BIG 2024 ANNOUNCEMENT

“It’s already outrageous enough that California legislators are denying special education benefits to Jewish kids with disabilities,” Eric Rassbach, the vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund, said in a statement. “But even worse, they’re denying benefits specifically because these kids want to go to a Jewish school. We’re asking the court to put a stop to this discriminatory law and let these kids get the benefits and services they need.”

Rassbach said the California law was harming Jewish families, and urged the court to "block this discriminatory law, and ensure that access to essential benefits isn’t cut off from families and schools just because they are religious."

The group's argument in the case is similar to that in Carson v. Makin, a 2022 Supreme Court case that challenged a Maine law prohibiting religious schools from participating in a limited school choice program that was available to students in rural regions with no public schools.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The Supreme Court ruled last year that Maine's exclusion of religious schools from the program was unconstitutional because it deliberately discriminated against religious adherents on the basis of their beliefs.

In the original lawsuit, the Carson ruling was repeatedly invoked, with the plaintiffs accusing California of violating the court's precedent.