In Hellman v. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, (1st Cir., March 20, 2026), parents contended that their children who are enrolled in private schools should be entitled to identical special education services as public school students. Under Massachusetts law, private school students only received such services at off-site locations, while public school students received them in their normal school buildings. Rejecting the parents' due process, equal protection and privileges or immunities claims, the court said in part:
The crux of the Parents' argument is that once the state establishes an otherwise generally available benefit, it may not deny that benefit to a student simply because their parents exercise their fundamental right to enroll their child in private school. But every case they cite arises under the Free Exercise Clause, not the parental rights doctrine involved here. (The Parents did not bring a Free Exercise claim; the Place Regulation applies to all private schools, secular and religious alike.) And those holdings have no bearing on their parental rights claim. They rest on a distinct, First Amendment principle that prohibits the state from imposing even indirect coercion or penalties on religious exercise...
That principle does not apply to the parental right..... [I]t does not require the state to extend public benefits on identical terms to private and public school students to protect the parents' choice of forum.
