Parents of two children with disabilities enrolled in private schools challenged Massachusetts regulations that distinguish between public and private school students regarding the location of publicly funded special education services. While public school students receive services on campus, the state regulations require private school students to receive services at a public school or another public or neutral site. This 'Place Regulation' stems from the Massachusetts Constitution's Anti-Aid Amendment, which prohibits the state from using public money to aid private schools. The parents argued that this requirement interfered with their fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children and violated the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Privileges or Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. They contended that the regulation penalized their choice of private schooling by making it logistically burdensome to access state-funded services. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the parents appealed to the First Circuit.
The court applied a three-step framework to evaluate the substantive due process claim. First, it acknowledged that parents have a fundamental liberty interest in directing the upbringing and education of their children, including the right to choose private schooling, as established in Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters. Second, the court analyzed whether the Place Regulation restricted this right. The court distinguished between state interference with a protected activity and a decision to fund an alternative activity. Citing Supreme Court precedent such as Maher v. Roe and Harris v. McRae, the court held that the government may leave a constitutional choice available while declining to finance or facilitate that choice on the claimant's preferred terms. The regulation did not bar parents from choosing private school, nor did it penalize that choice; it merely defined the terms on which the state would provide publicly funded services. The court noted that the parents retained three options: enroll in public school to receive services on-site, enroll in private school to receive services at a public or neutral location, or opt out of publicly funded services entirely. Because the regulation did not meaningfully intrude on the forum choice, the court found no restriction of the fundamental right. Consequently, the court applied rational basis review. The state identified a legitimate interest in providing special education services while complying with the state constitution's prohibition on aiding private schools. The court found the Place Regulation was a rational means to advance this interest. The court also rejected the Equal Protection claim, noting that the regulation did not discriminate based on a suspect classification or the exercise of a fundamental right, and it survived rational basis review. Finally, the court dismissed the Privileges or Immunities claim, stating that the clause protects only rights of national citizenship and does not serve as a repository for unenumerated substantive rights.
The decision affirms the district court's dismissal, meaning the Massachusetts Place Regulation remains in effect. Parents of private school students with disabilities must continue to receive publicly funded special education services at public or neutral locations rather than on the private school campus. The ruling clarifies that states may administer public benefits to private school students on different logistical terms than public school students without violating the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses, provided the regulation is rationally related to a legitimate government interest, such as complying with state constitutional restrictions on aiding private schools.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download