When a State Says “Not Here”: The Supreme Court Case That Could Change Where Your Child Gets Special Ed Services

The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether a state can tell a child with a disability: yes, you’re entitled to special education services, but you’ll have to leave your school to get them. That’s the question at the center of Hellman v. Craven, petitioned to the Supreme Court in July 2026 by two Massachusetts families whose children attend Jewish day schools. The state will pay for their publicly funded special education services, but only if the children travel to a public school or a “neutral” location. The families say that forces them to choose between their children’s religious education and their educational rights. The Supreme Court could take up the case when its October 2026 term opens.

If your child is being denied special education services they’re entitled to, call the LLF National Law Firm’s Student Defense Team at 888-535-3686 or reach us through our contact form. We represent families nationwide and fight to get students the services the law guarantees them.

What Federal Law Already Requires

Under IDEA, public schools must provide eligible students with a free and appropriate public education. For students whose parents voluntarily enroll them in private schools, IDEA’s individual rights protections don’t carry over, but states can go further. Massachusetts did, giving parentally placed private school students an individual right to publicly funded special education services, but with a regulation barring state- or locally funded delivery on private school campuses. Children must instead travel to public schools or neutral sites, at significant time, disruption, and personal expense.

What the Court Is Being Asked to Decide

The families argue Massachusetts is conditioning access to special education on surrendering a constitutional right, specifically the right to send children to private schools. They are asking the Supreme Court to apply the “unconstitutional conditions doctrine,” the principle that the government cannot make a benefit contingent on surrendering a constitutional right. The First Circuit disagreed, ruling the location restriction is a logistical burden rather than a meaningful intrusion on parental rights. The families say lower courts are divided on this question, which is why Supreme Court review is needed. Even if the Court rules for them, states wouldn’t be required to build full special education programs at private schools; it would simply prevent states from using no-aid provisions to strip benefits from families who choose private education.

Why Families Nationwide Should Pay Attention

This case has drawn attention well beyond Massachusetts:

• A coalition of 14 states, led by West Virginia and South Carolina, filed an amicus brief urging the Court to hear the case.
• Nebraska families filed a separate First Amendment lawsuit a few weeks later.
• The conflict between state no-aid provisions and publicly funded school choice programs is playing out in courts across the country.

For families whose children have special education issues unrelated to private school enrollment, the dynamic is familiar: a child is legally entitled to services, and the school or state makes access harder than it should be. That problem doesn’t wait for the Supreme Court.

We Help Students and Families Fight Back

Whether a school is refusing to implement an IEP or placing unlawful conditions on disability accommodations your child is legally owed, the Student Defense Team at the LLF National Law Firm knows how to push back. We work with families from coast to coast, in public schools, private schools, and everywhere in between.

Call us at 888-535-3686 or contact us through our online form. Tell us what’s happening with your child, and we’ll tell you what we can do about it.