Press Release: 3/24/2026
Appeals Court Rules Against Massachusetts Families in Lawsuit Over Unconstitutional Conditions for Special Education Services, Family Will Appeal to The Supreme Court
Phillip Suderman · March 23, 2026
IJ is a public interest law firm. We represent clients free of charge in cutting-edge litigation defending vital constitutional rights. You can join us by supporting our work here: ij.org/support
BOSTON—Last Friday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that dismissed a lawsuit brought by Ariella and David Hellman, and Josh Harrison and Miriam Segura-Harrison, two sets of parents with children who have special educational requirements. Their lawsuit challenged a Massachusetts regulation that effectively bars some children from receiving special education services to which they are statutorily entitled solely because their parents exercised their fundamental, constitutional right to send their children to private school. The families, represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ) and the Pioneer Public Interest Law Center (PPILC), will petition the United States Supreme Court to take up the case.
“This is a blow not only to our clients, but to the parents and children across the entire commonwealth who need these special education services,” said IJ Educational Choice Attorney David Hodges. “The law is clear that Massachusetts must provide all children, not just the ones that regulators favor, with special education services on the same terms. It is unfortunate that the First Circuit sanctioned the state’s decision to discriminate against children whose parents exercised a fundamental right. We plan on asking the Supreme Court to right this wrong.”
Massachusetts guarantees all students with special education services in their regular educational environment. Yet even though Massachusetts law entitles all children to the services, a state regulation makes access to services practically unobtainable for children whose parents exercise their fundamental, constitutional right to enroll them in private schools. IJ’s lawsuit argued that the regulation was unconstitutional under the landmark United States Supreme Court case Pierce v. Society of Sisters, which held that that the right of parents to direct the education of one’s children, recognized in Meyer v. Nebraska, includes the right to send one’s children to a private school.
The regulation subverts state law by barring children whose parents exercised the Pierce right—and only these children—from receiving services in their schools. Unlike every other child with special educational requirements, these children are required to leave their schools to get services, which effectively makes the services impossible to access. Massachusetts justifies this regulation with a state constitutional amendment that bars “aid” to private schools. This justification is wrong for many reasons, including the fact that special education services for disabled students are aid to children, not schools.
While the court acknowledged that the Hellmans and Harrisons properly alleged that the regulation infringed their constitutional right to send their children to private school, it also held that a state is not prohibited from penalizing or imposing indirect coercion or penalties on its exercise. The court suggested that the only right that is protected from indirect coercion or penalties on its exercise is the Free Exercise right—a suggestion at odds with Chief Justice Marshall, who wrote in 1825, “it is a general rule that what cannot be done directly from defect of power cannot be done indirectly.”
“This decision is painful and comes at a cost to families across all of Massachusetts,” said Ariella Hellman. “We are moving forward and hope the Supreme Court will make this right on behalf of all the children who both need and deserve our help.”
“Children with special educational requirements are already among the most vulnerable people in society,” said IJ Senior Attorney Renée Flaherty. “To essentially take away these services simply because their parents exercised a fundamental, constitutional right is both harmful and unconstitutional.”
# # #
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, and Wyoming alongside EdChoice Legal Advocates as part of the Partnership for Educational Choice.
PPILC, 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 psuderman@ij.org or (850) 376-4110. More information on the case is available at: https://ij.org/case/massachusetts-school-choice/