14 States; Civil Rights, Education, and Religious Groups; and Leading Scholar Urge Supreme Court to Grant Special Education Petition

WASHINGTON— Yesterday, a broad coalition of amici—including a 14-state coalition led by South Carolina and West Virginia, ExcelinEd, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the New Civil Liberties Alliance—filed briefs at the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court to grant a petition askingwhether the government can withhold aid from children simply because their parents exercised a constitutional right.

The petition, filed on behalf of Massachusetts parents Ariella and David Hellman and Josh Harrison and Miriam Segura-Harrison, challenges a state regulation that bars children from receiving special education services at the private schools their parents chose for them—services the children are otherwise statutorily entitled to receive. The families, represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ) and the Pioneer New England Legal Foundation (PNELF), petitioned the Supreme Court for review after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the regulation earlier this year.

The seven amicus briefs reflect the widespread interest in the case from states, educators, civil rights groups, children’s advocates, and more. Additional amici—beyond the four listed above—include the Council for American Private Education and Agudath Israel on a joint brief, the Center for the Rights of Abused Children, and the eminent education scholar Professor Charles Glenn.

“The question of whether the government can deny a benefit to a child because of her parents’ exercise of a constitutional right is profoundly important,” said IJ Educational Choice Attorney David Hodges. “We are deeply grateful to all the amici who lent their time, talent, and support to the Hellmans and Harrisons.”

 Among the reasons the amici gave for supporting the petition:

A 14-state coalition led by South Carolina and West Virginia stated: “Massachusetts is not merely declining to extend services, it is actively weaponizing a child’s guaranteed entitlement—again, supported by their family’s own tax dollars—as leverage to coerce the family back into public school. The regulation creates a penalty for exercising a constitutional right, converting what should be a child-centered benefit into a tool of institutional control.”

ExcelinEd, an education policy organization founded by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, noted: “For over a century, this Court has protected the right of parents to direct their children’s education. And there is increasing enthusiasm among state legislatures to support parental choice, including by expanding support for private education. But opponents of educational freedom continue to invoke state constitutional provisions to ‘forc[e] [children] to accept instruction from public teachers.’” 

The New Civil Liberties Alliance added: “This Court has long made plain that parents—not the state—have the natural and fundamental right to dictate the terms of their children’s upbringing. For just as long, governments have perniciously and unjustifiably interfered with that relationship, seeking to render children vassals of the state . . . . Given the nature of the relationship between parent and child—and its fundamental, natural value—few issues are more important for this Court to resolve.”

Charles Glenn, professor emeritus of educational leadership and policy at Boston University who, while previously acting as the director of urban education and equity efforts for the Massachusetts Department of Education, spearheaded the desegregation of Boston Public Schools wrote: “The [Massachusetts] Anti-Aid Amendment is cut from the same cloth as the laws this Court addressed in Pierce and Meyer. In those cases, this Court vindicated the right of parents to choose the schooling consistent with their hopes for their children. To the extent the Anti Aid Amendment likewise places impermissible conditions on that right, it is unconstitutional.”

Links to all briefs are available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-97.html.

#  #  #

IJ is the nation’s leading law firm defending educational choice programs and expanding educational access and opportunity. Since its founding in 1991, IJ has successfully represented parents in educational choice lawsuits in numerous state supreme courts, intermediate courts of appeal, and trial courts, as well as four times at the U.S. Supreme Court (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, Carson v. Makin). IJ is currently defending choice programs in Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, Alaska, and Wyoming alongside EdChoice Legal Advocates as part of the Partnership for Educational Choice. 

PNELF, which serves as consulting counsel in this case, is a nonpartisan, public interest law firm that defends and promotes educational options, accountable government, and economic opportunity across the Northeast. PNELF achieves its mission through legal research, amicus briefs, and litigation.

To arrange interviews on this subject, journalists may contact Phillip Suderman, IJ’s communications project manager, at [email protected] or (850) 376-4110. More information on the case is available at: https://ij.org/case/massachusetts-school-choice/.