Sunday, April 27, 2025

Should religious schools receive special education services?

    The case of Loffman v. California Department of Education reveals Jewish parents in California who have a religious obligation to send their children to a religious school that reflects their beliefs. Parents like Chaya and Yoni Loffman, Fedora Nick and Morris Taxon, and Sarah and Ariel Perets are put in a difficult position due to their children’s disabilities. While top Jewish schools like Shalhevet High School and Yavneh Hebrew Academy offer high-quality, faith-based education and are eager to serve children with disabilities, California law has excluded religious schools from receiving state and federal special education funding. This exclusion forces religious families to choose between their faith and essential disability services for their children, a choice not required of families sending children to secular schools. The plaintiffs argue that in rejecting funding for special education in religious schools, their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion is being violated. 

    The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is designed to ensure all children with disabilities can access an equal and sufficient education. This includes funding for special education services. California’s “nonsectarian requirement” rejects religious schools from participating in these programs. This policy disproportionately affects religious communities and parents unable to fully support their students and children, along with lower-income families, who are more likely to have children with disabilities. In implementing this, the government is putting parents in the position to choose between their faith and their children’s needs. This decision parents are forced to make places a direct burden on their religious freedoms that are protected under the First Amendment. As the plaintiffs have argued, they feel as though excluding religious schools from receiving funding for special education is discriminatory while also violating their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. 

    While this case is awaiting its return to the district court for trial, the case went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 28, 2024. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously found that California’s law fails to be neutral by providing necessary beneficial services to secular schools, but not to religious families and schools. This ruling reveals that California cannot deny special education funding to religious schools, as a failure to do so would be unconstitutional. 

    In analyzing this case, there are similarities to the recent Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020). Espinoza reveals the issue that stemmed from Montana passing a law that offered tax credits to donations for private schools, including religious ones. Montana’s Department of Revenue created Rule 1, prohibiting this aid from being received by families attending religious schools. This was in line with Montana’s Constitution, implementing their no-aid policy. Mothers of children attending religious schools wanted equal access to these donations and challenged the rule in court. The Montana Supreme Court struck down the entire program because of Rule 1, but the U.S. Supreme Court later found that this was unconstitutional. The Court argued that in granting aid to all private schools, including religious ones, there is no advancement of religion. While religious schools may receive indirect aid, the aid is directly benefiting the families of the children who attend these schools, not advancing religion. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of Espinoza, stating that in not doing so, they would be upholding unconstitutional practices and violating their First Amendment rights to freely exercise their religion.

    Similar to Espinoza, the case of Loffman deals with the exclusion of religious schools, students, and families from public benefits. Excluding religious schools from receiving the public benefit of state funding for special education lacks neutrality, as secular schools can benefit from these programs while religious ones do not. This is an important issue to address as it directly affects the families seeking an education that meets both their children’s unique needs and their religious beliefs. This case is significant as it has broader implications, potentially influencing how other states handle special education funding for religious schools.

    I feel as though the Court should rule in favor of the plaintiffs. Given the direct burden that is placed on the families who are negatively affected by this law, and the direct burden on their religious freedoms, it seems unconstitutional to uphold the case made by the California Department of Education. The lack of neutrality of this law is also extremely apparent. Secular schools, more specifically, the families of students who attend secular schools, are granted the public benefits to receive special education, a genuine need. States should not be at liberty to single out religious schools or families for exclusion from generally available public benefits based on the sole reason that they are religious. While I can see how there may be counterarguments rooted in the significance of the wall between church and state, I do not think that ruling in favor of Loffman advances religion. Neutrality towards religion is a key part of the Constitution, in ignoring the implications these laws have on religious families would directly go against that.

    With all of this being said, I invite you to share your opinions on this case. What do you think? Are the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to freely exercise their religion being infringed upon?


Sources:

https://becketfund.org/case/loffman-v-california-department-of-education/

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/10/28/23-55714.pdf

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1195

9 comments:

Jordan H said...

I completely agree with your point of view on this situation. Religious families shouldn’t have to choose between getting their education and their faith. Excluding religious schools from public benefits is a clear violation of the principle of neutrality. These services are to support families, not to aid religious institutions. This is to ensure equal access to constitutional rights without advancing religion.

Luke C said...

I think way you broke this case down was done very well. It’s hard to argue that California’s policy is neutral when it forces religious families to choose between their faith and their children's educational needs. That feels like a pretty clear burden on free exercise. I also think the connection you made to Espinoza is spot-on. The Court has been clear that if a benefit is generally available, states can’t single out religious schools or families for exclusion just because of their faith. Providing special education services doesn’t “advance religion” - it has the primary (and secular) goal of supporting kids with disabilities. This is in my eyes, a universally agreed upon goal. I think protecting neutrality means including religious schools, not excluding them.

Dylan M. said...

I agree and believe the court made the right call here. Religious families shouldn’t have to be conflicted between their faith and obtaining the proper education for their children with disabilities. California’s rule undoubtedly favors secular schools, providing them public benefits while leaving out religious ones. That is discrimination, rather than being neutral. Like Espinoza, this is an issue regarding providing families with equal access. Church and state is still separated, as special education services support the child, not the religion.

Natalie H said...

I agree with your analysis here! Religious families should not have to feel they have to choose between their faith and an education they believe their children deserve in special education. While I see the side of not providing these services to a religious school, this benefit generally applies to everyone. They should not be able to refuse to provide this benefit due to the religious affiliation of the school; this would be religious viewpoint discrimination. If the benefit is offered to non-religious schools then it should be offered to religious ones.

Hannah D. said...

I’m curious to know if the aid goes only to public schools, or if it also goes to private schools that are secular. In either case, the aid is meant to be going to the students who need it, so constitutionally it wouldn’t be endorsing or supporting any particular sect, it would be helping families with children who have disabilities.

Charlotte S said...

I agree with the comments above. Religious families should be able to have the choice to send their child to religious school and have access to special service education. However, I do have similar questions to Hannah. Constitutionally, I don't think there would be an issue of neutrality in the court denying service if secular private schools were also denied aid. On the issue of Free-Exercise, I do see some problems with religious schools being denied the aid as it severely limits the choices of parents who have the means to send children to a religious school. Personally, I believe that all private schools, religious or secular, should be given some level of aid for special education services as it allows families of children with special needs a choice in their education. A private institution would most likely be a better educational outlet due to more individualized support.

sarahl said...

I agree that the law shows a lack of neutrality. I think religious families should be able to send their children to religious schools and still receive special education services. California's law favors secular schools by providing these services only to them, which I believe is unfair. All schools should have equal access to these services, regardless of their religious affiliation. Additionally, by providing these resources, the government is not advancing religion, but rather ensuring laws are provided fairly without discrimination.

Jack L. said...

I agree with your arguments and analysis of this case. Religious families should never be forced to choose between their children's essential educational services and their religious beliefs. California’s exclusion of religious schools from special education funding clearly demonstrates a lack of neutrality, particularly when secular schools receive this benefit without issue. Like others have said, the funding directly helps children with disabilities, it doesn’t promote religion. Aligning with Espinoza, equal access to these benefits is fundamental to protecting religious freedom and ensuring fairness across all families, religious or otherwise.

April Torres said...

I agree with the plaintiffs in Loffman v. California Department of Education. Denying special education funding to religious schools unfairly burdens families who are trying to honor both their faith and their children's needs. This policy lacks neutrality and discriminates against religious families in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Just like in Espinoza, the aid benefits the child, not the institution. Religious parents should not be forced to choose between accessing essential services and practicing their faith.