Washington, D.C., Aug. 19, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Parents have a constitutional right to make decisions about their children’s education, and that right includes sending a child to private school. States may not penalize parents for exercising that or any other constitutional right. But Massachusetts does exactly that by refusing to deliver certain special education benefits to children in a private school setting if that school was selected by parents of an otherwise eligible child. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently upheld this arrangement in Hellman v. Craven, continuing a rampant trend of injustice and government disdain for parents’ educational rights.

Courts nationwide have all-too-often allowed governments to condition valuable government benefits on the beneficiary’s surrender of constitutional rights. The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine, properly understood, prevents government from engaging in such behavior. In this case, however, the First Circuit egregiously misconstrued the doctrine, holding that it applies only to First Amendment rights. That holding ignores multiple Supreme Court decisions and is impossible to square with the Constitution. Aside from being legally wrong, the First Circuit’s decision also directly threatens parental rights and countless other fundamental constitutional guarantees.

As New Civil Liberties Alliance founder and CEO Philip Hamburger writes, “It is notorious that judicial decisions on conditions are poorly developed and often simply wrong.” NCLA filed an amicus curiae brief today urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Hellman v. Craven, overturn the First Circuit’s decision, and clarify that the Constitution prohibits indirect coercion against parental rights and others beyond the First Amendment.

The threat of unconstitutional conditions is not limited to deprivations of individual rights. Allowing one part of government, and particularly the Executive Branch, to regulate by conditions on benefits and privileges enables it to take actions constitutionally reserved for the other branches, which must abide by clearly-defined limits on such actions. And the problem grows with every new benefit or privilege administered. Safeguarding constitutional liberties demands that courts and government observers remain vigilant lest the government accepting the limitation of rights in exchange for those benefits and privileges accomplishes the widespread sacrifice of liberty. 

NCLA released the following statements:

“That the government obtains surrender of rights through its purse rather than through the exertion of force matters little if the result is still a populace stripped of the liberties our Founders designed government to protect.”
— Zhonette Brown, General Counsel and Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“The First Circuit’s decision undermines parents’ rights and threatens countless other fundamental rights. The Supreme Court should remind lower courts that the Constitution always protects fundamental rights—regardless of how governments violate them.”
— Christian Clase, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“The decision below eviscerated the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, mistakenly holding that it only applies in the First Amendment context. The Supreme Court should hear this case and right this wrong, so that other fundamental rights remain protected from indirect government attack.”
— Mark Chenoweth, President, NCLA

For more information visit the amicus page here.

ABOUT NCLA
NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights. 


Joe Martyak
New Civil Liberties Alliance
703-403-1111
joe.martyak@ncla.legal

Media gallery

About The Author
New Civil Liberties Alliance