A group of Republican-led states is asking the Supreme Court to consider a case that may redefine the connections between school choice, parental rights, and special education services across the nation. The case involves two Massachusetts families seeking access to special education benefits for their children attending private schools.
State Argument Against Massachusetts
In a support brief for the families, attorneys general from 14 states argue that the government should not force parents to leave private education by limiting educational benefits. Massachusetts, they claim, is using special education as a tool to pressure families back toward public schools. They believe that while states are not required to create educational benefits, once they do, they cannot add restrictions that make parents choose between these benefits and school choice.
“For opponents of school choice, that is the point—to leverage taxpayer dollars to coerce families into public schools by making private education the only setting in which benefits are forfeited,” the states wrote.
The Massachusetts attorney general’s office has yet to comment on the issue.
Impact on Families Nationwide
Special education services affect millions of families, with over 7 million public school students receiving such services. The Supreme Court ruling could influence whether states that finance these services for private-school students must provide them on the same campuses, instead of requiring travel to public or neutral locations.
The Hellman Case
The case, Hellman v. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, centers on two families—Ariella and David Hellman, and Josh Harrison and Miriam Segura-Harrison—whose children have disabilities and attend private Jewish day schools. These families accuse Massachusetts of violating parents’ rights to choose private schooling without penalty.
Massachusetts law provides special education services to children in both public and private schools. Yet under the state’s “Place Restriction” policy, those in private schools cannot receive these services on their campuses and must instead go to public or neutral sites. The families argue this restriction causes burdens like instructional time loss, travel during school, and stigma from service-related absences.
The U.S Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dismissed these claims, noting that though parents have a right to such a choice, Massachusetts implemented this policy in line with its constitution’s limits on aiding private schools.
Republican State Support
West Virginia and South Carolina led the states’ backing, including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Texas. They claim the case’s implications go beyond Massachusetts, affecting nationwide educational choice initiatives. The coalition aims to protect parental freedom in choosing educational settings that meet their children’s needs without state-imposed requirements.
Besides, they argue that these restrictions often disadvantage families seeking religious education, as private schools usually include religious ones.
Massachusetts’ Stance
Massachusetts asserts it is not denying special education services, but is maintaining the segregation of private schools from public financial aid. According to the state, special services can be accessed at public schools or neutral locations but not private institutions.
The First Circuit found this policy justified, aiming to enforce compliance with the state’s constitution. Despite opposition questioning the historical roots of Massachusetts’ anti-aid provisions, the court’s stance remains firm in upholding equal protection and constitutional rights.
Future Developments
The Supreme Court has yet to determine if it will consider the case. If they proceed, the verdict could set a precedent on the extent of constitutional safeguards for parental choice in education and the limits governments can impose in funding those who select private schooling.