A federal appeals court ruled that the state does not violate the Constitution by requiring private school students to travel to public sites for disability services.
TLDR
A federal appeals court in Boston made a significant decision about special education. Some Jewish parents in Massachusetts sued because their children have disabilities but attend private religious schools. These children are allowed to get state-funded help, but a state rule says they must go to a public school or a “neutral” spot to get it. The parents argued this was unfair and made it too hard to choose private school. The court disagreed. It said the state has a right to decide where it gives out services. The state’s main reason is a rule in its own constitution that says public money cannot go directly to private schools.
Case Information
* Case Name: Ariella Hellman v. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
* Date: March 20, 2026
* Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
The court ruled that Massachusetts can make private school students go to public locations for special education. The judges said this does not take away the parents’ right to choose a private school. This case is important because it shows that even if you have a right to choose something, the government does not always have to pay for it the way you want.
What are the facts of the case?
The parents in this case have children with disabilities like ADHD and dyslexia. These children need extra help with things like reading and counseling. The parents want their children to have a Jewish education, so they enrolled them in private religious schools.
Massachusetts says every child with a disability has a right to special education help. However, a rule called the “Place Regulation” says this help must happen at a public school building or another neutral place. The parents said it was too stressful and difficult to drive their kids back and forth during the school day. They felt the state was punishing them for picking a private school.
How did the court look at the parents’ rights?
The court used three steps to decide:
* Step 1: It agreed that parents have a “fundamental right” to choose where their kids go to school.
* Step 2: It decided the state was not actually stopping that right. The state is not banning private schools; it is just saying it will only provide help in public places.
* Step 3: It looked for a “rational basis” or a good reason for the rule. The state’s reason was that its own constitution forbids giving direct aid to private schools.
Why wasn’t there a “Free Exercise” of religion claim?
A “Free Exercise” claim is usually used when people feel their religious rights are being attacked. However, the parents did not use this specific legal argument in this case.
The court noticed that the “Place Regulation” applies to everyone in private school. It does not matter if the school is religious or not. Since the rule treats a religious school the same way it treats a non-religious private school, the court did not see it as a religious freedom issue. The parents even admitted that this kind of claim might not work under current laws.
Why was this different from other religious freedom cases?
Lately, the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot leave religious schools out of certain benefit programs. The parents argued those cases should help them here. The court said no. It explained that those other cases were about the government treating religion worse than non-religion. In this Massachusetts case, the state is treating all private schools exactly the same.
What is next?
The court’s decision means the rule will stay the same for now. Private school students in Massachusetts will still have to travel to public sites to get their special education services. The parents could try to ask the Supreme Court to look at the case, but for now, the state has won.
Commentary
This case reminds us that there is a big difference between having a right and getting the government to pay for it. The court basically said the parents are free to choose a private school, but they have to deal with the logistical results of that choice. The state is not building a wall to keep kids out of private school. It is just refusing to move its own teachers and equipment into those private buildings.
The judges played it very safe. They used the “rational basis” test, which is very easy for the government to pass. As long as the state has any logical reason for a rule, the court will usually let it stay. By using the state constitution as an excuse, Massachusetts gave the judges a very solid reason to lean on.
It is interesting that the parents did not use a religious liberty argument. Most of the big wins for private school families lately have come from the First Amendment. By sticking only to “parental rights” under the Fourteenth Amendment, the parents used an older legal path that has not been very successful in recent years. This might be why they lost.
This case creates a clear guide for other states. If a state wants to keep its public and private systems separate, it just needs to make sure its rules apply to all private schools equally. As long as the rules are about “where” things happen and not “who” gets them based on religion, courts will likely keep supporting the states.
Citations
Subscription Call
If you want to stay updated on how laws affect your family and your faith, like, share, and subscribe to ReligiousLiberty.TV. Our subscribers get the latest news on big court cases.
Disclaimers
This article was assisted by AI.
This does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to talk to licensed attorneys about their particular situations.
First Circuit, Special Education, Parental Rights, Private School, Massachusetts Law
