​​IJ's David Hodges & Plaintiff Ariella Hellman on U.S. First Circuit Case, Hellman v. Mass. DESE

Hello, everybody. Welcome to another brand new episode of the Learning Curve Podcast. Happy early Valentine's Day. Hey, Alicia, I don't know if you've got any plans for Valentine's Day. But, you know, our show, incidentally, doesn't have anything to do with it. But maybe we'll shoot the breeze about this. Alicia, who's my co-host, who I forgot to introduce. What's up? Well, hello. And, yes, I love Valentine's Day. My husband does a wonderful job planning. I have no idea what he has planned this year, but it's always fun and exciting. And so happy Valentine's Day to Valentine's Week. How about that? To all of those who love and are loved and however that means to you. All right. Well, we've had episodes that commemorated Valentine's Day in the past, but this week, a little different. I mean, we don't have anything related to that, or at least directly related. Instead, we've got David Hodges and Arielle Hellman. We're going to come and talk to us about an important case that's going in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Hellman v. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. So buckle up. I mean, we've got a kind of intense show. It should be a fun one and an enlightening one. But let's talk about some news first, Alicia. What caught your eye this week? So lots of interesting things in the news, but the one that caught my eye for today is a piece in Chalkbeat Chicago. Why the Chicago principal welcomed Education Secretary Linda McMahon despite community pushback. And our listeners will have to forgive me with my little voice here, a little bit under the weather. So this was an interesting piece. Here we have a private school in Chicago where the Secretary of Education wanted to come and visit. And as you can imagine, there was a little bit of controversy around this where some parents did not want her to come. Some parents did want her to come. I think the principal did the best thing that he could have done, which is ask the students. I think it's very powerful when we invoke, you know, the thoughts, the opinions, the perspectives of young people, the ones who we're talking about all the time, right? We like to do things to kids, not with them. And so I love the fact that this principal took the time to ask the students what they thought. And ultimately, he decided that he would go ahead and allow Secretary McMahon to visit. So there are a couple of things about this, right? We obviously know that the Department of Education is doing a number of things, and they have openly said, to dismantle the Department of Public Education. And they've made a number of decisions that are considered controversial. And so you can understand why parents and others may not have liked the idea of the secondary tribe education coming. But I think if you're one of those people who believes in having dialogue, hearing the perspective of others, and listening to the voice of young people, maybe not a bad idea. Yeah. I also appreciate that in this particular school, because it is predominantly black and Hispanic, there were a number of black and Hispanic historical figures up on the wall being celebrated, being acknowledged. A photo of Booker T. Washington, a prominent black educator and leader from the late 1800s and early 1900s. A religious poem painted in both English and Spanish. And so I think as much as the secretary came to talk about her work and the history of America and the history of Illinois, maybe she got a little education, too. To understand the importance of history and diversity and making sure that students receive an education that is culturally relevant. I would like to believe that this was a good decision on the part of the principal. You know, you respect the position that this person is in, the opportunity for students to interact with a federal official and be able to have some dialogue. And so kudos to this principal for the way that he handled it. And I do hope that the Secretary of Education walked away with some new insights, again, about history and diversity and seeing all types of students and the ways in which they can learn in this country. Yeah, and I think, you know, if I understand correctly, this is part of, I guess, a tour. Yes. She's going on to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the founding of our country. And, you know, Alicia, I mean, I really appreciate your comments and just kind of calling folks together that, you know, maybe this year, in spite of all the stuff that divides us, you know, maybe we can find a way to come together. And, you know, this is not also a, you know, I'm not putting on some rose-colored lenses, you know. I mean, look, this has been a 250-year experiment, and there's been lots of good that's been done, but as some people say with the presentation of American history, you know, we've got to talk about it all, you know, warts and all, you know. And I appreciate how you pointed out there's an opportunity to come together and to have those hard conversations and maybe walk away both sides and feeling a bit more enlightened and a bit more connected to one another. That's exactly the sentiment. I hope there's more of that going on and we can learn from this principle and from these young people. Well, thanks for sharing that. I've got an article that really caught my eye, and it's on a topic that we've talked about quite a bit, so maybe it caught your eye. It's an opinion piece by Nicholas Kristof over at New York Times. The headline is, These Three Red States Are the Best Hope in Schooling. And guess what? All three states are in the South, but, you know, Georgia and Arkansas weren't called out here. It's Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. You know, Nicholas Kristof, I guess, had the opportunity to visit some schools in these three states to see what was going on and make the case that, hey, you know, something's going on. We need to pay attention to these schools, and they're actually doing something to improve student outcomes. And, you know, we've talked about Mississippi quite a bit on the show with their embrace of science of reading and also, you know, investing in the support to help teachers actually implement this kind of instruction, you know, the Mississippi miracle, as we often said on the show. But he's also showcased some other things that Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are doing. And, you know, if you'll indulge me just a little bit, two things caught my eye. One is, you know, these states have been really implementing their accountability systems, and for whatever reason, they're not getting the kind of pushback that we're accustomed to seeing from teachers and other stakeholders, that they're getting buy-in, it seems like, from this article across the board. So I think that really caught my eye, this kind of the way the state's doing accountability. But then also they've been fighting absenteeism like crazy here. There's a little anecdote about a high school senior who stopped attending classes after he fought with his mom and ran off and disappeared. And a school leaned on a friend of his to find him. And the assistant superintendent of that district says, you know, we are going to get him back. You know, just emphatically saying that and saying how you're going to use every tool available to check this kid down. And, you know, I think this underscores this culture there that, you know, one, a recognition of the challenges that many of these students face. But, you know, at the same time, in recognizing that, fighting for these students. And so, you know, we've talked about not making excuses. You know, we've talked about, as President Bush once said, addressing the soft bigotry of low expectations. It really seems like these schools are also doing that. So there's a lot going on. And I just want to highlight this article because I think it gives us a really close peek at maybe what else is going on. Anyway, I don't know if this had come across your desk and if you had thoughts on this. Yeah, I appreciate the points that you highlighted, particularly around the accountability piece. I know Louisiana is kind of leading the way on accountability. And to your point, I think you hit the nail on the head. It's about buying. I think if whoever the stakeholder group is, number one, if they really have the same high expectations and beliefs about kids and their ability to learn and you bring them in the process along the way, get their buy in, I think you'll see more success. I think that's a big part of the so-called miracle in Mississippi. That wasn't so much a miracle, right? They just did really good work. They were very focused on it and did the right things. And a huge part of their success was getting the buy-in from teachers, from other stakeholders, from parents, community members, certainly from students. And so I agree wholeheartedly. And I think, too, what other states should think about, and Georgia included, we just had a new literacy bill introduced last week by the Speaker of the House, which I appreciate because we have not had the kind of leadership that I would have liked to see over the years around literacy. But to your point, like, you can do things here and there, but if you don't do all of the pieces that are necessary, you're not going to see the impact. I think the three states that are highlighted in this article have been consistent. They've had buy-in. They have accountability systems in place. So it's all the things that we know are effective. So you can have great policy, but if you don't have the buy-in and those systems in place to implement effectively, you're going to continue to see those holes. And so kudos to these southern states, right, because the South hasn't always led. And when you look at this article, it talks about how there are some schools in Mississippi or as a whole, there are students who are in Mississippi who are performing higher than in Massachusetts. And, you know, we've seen no dig on Massachusetts. I know we got a big listenership. But, I mean, you think about over the years, Albert, Massachusetts has always been the state that we look to. They've always been highest in terms of student performance. Mississippi is beating them in some areas in terms of literacy. So kudos to Mississippi and other southern states. Georgia and Arkansas better get in line. That's all I have to say. Well, we are doing stuff here, I know, and hopefully it will bear out in the future. And now we talked about this not being a miracle. You know, I guess miracles technically are things that defy the natural course of things. And so let's hope that this isn't just a miracle, but this is something that becomes like the natural course of things. So I hope all this keeps up. You know, I was thinking about hoping that this is not like a Finland Institute. You know, I know we used to brag or people used to swoon over what Finland was doing with their test scores and, you know, not doing very well anymore. So I hope this is the case where it's not like that and that we can get sustained here. So thanks for sharing those articles. Always fun to talk news and education with you, Alicia. But let's get to our interview. Our guests, David Hodges and Ariel Hellman, coming up after the break. David Hodges is an attorney at the Institute for Justice where he focuses on revitalizing the Meyer right and defending educational choice programs David was a member of the IJ team that successfully argued the landmark educational choice case Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue before the United States Supreme Court. Prior to joining IJ, he co-founded the Governor's STEM Scholars, an educational nonprofit program, and worked for Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer. He has been interviewed on PBS and NPR, quoted in the New York Times, and published in National Journal, Commentary, Star-Ledger, Weekly Standard, and the Ocean and Coastal Law Journal. David earned a B.A. from American University and his J.D. from American University, Washington College of Law. And joining David is Ariella Hellman, who is the Senior Vice President for Public Policy and Advocacy at ADAC and Director of Government Affairs for Agudaf Israel of New England. She and her family are lead plaintiffs in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit case, Hellman v. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Ariella has served as the director of the day school initiative at Combined Jewish Philanthropies and was also the associate director of government affairs at the Jewish Community Relations Council, where she advocated for key legislative priorities on behalf of the Jewish community. Ariella holds a bachelor's degree from Yeshiva University and a JD from the Fordham University School of Law. David and Mariella, thank you both for joining our show. David, let's start with you. Congratulations on a nice job in the U.S. First Circuit oil arguments back in December. And I know for the listeners on the show who do a lot of advocacy for school choice, you and the entire IG team have their admiration and respect. So perhaps for our listeners who might not have the background, the legal background of some of the recent cases, Could you start with an overview of major school choice and religious liberty law decisions made in recent years? So I'm thinking about Trinity Lutheran, Espinosa, and Carson. First of all, thank you so much for having me on this podcast. I've listened to it for many years, and it's an honor to be on to talk about this important case. So there are a lot of school choice cases that warrant attention, but I think that there are two in particular that warrant our listeners' notice. The first is Zellman v. Simmons Harris, and the other is Espinosa v. Montaigne Department of Revenue. And the reason why I think they weren't noticed is because each deals with a different component of the First Amendment. So the First Amendment has several parts, and that includes the Establishment Clause, which forbids the state establishment of religion, and the Free Exercise Clause, which guarantees the free practice of religion. And both Zellman and Espinosa dealt with those parts of the First Amendment. So many years ago, when educational choice was just in its infancy, the most pressing question, the most pressing constitutional question about educational choice was whether the establishment clause permitted any kind of school voucher program. And the question was whether choice programs constituted an establishment of religion since they allowed parents to use public funds for their kids to go to religious schools. And that question came to a head in Zellman. In that case, the state of Ohio created a small choice program for kids in Ohio that primarily served students attending private religious schools. So it wasn't for kids who attended religious schools. It was for all kids. But most of the kids who ended up using the program attended religious schools. And the program ended up getting challenged by the usual suspects, the teachers' union. And it goes to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court upholds it. And the court says it's constitutional for a few reasons. First, the program is religiously neutral. Second, it provides aid to a broad class of people. And third, these people, these parents, through their own independent choices, choose to send their children to religious schools. So because of parental choice in the program's religious neutrality, the voucher program breaks the link between church and state. And it's not like the court holds. It's not like a program that appropriates money to a specific religious group. It's different. So Zellman settles this major establishment clause question under the First Amendment and kind of opens the door for educational choice. But after Zellman, our opponents, you know, they're nothing if not relentless. So they don't just pack up their backs and go home. Instead, what they do is they start looking for other opportunities that they can challenge educational choice. And they look to state constitutions. They look at what are called Blaine Amendments. And these are of this, like, 19th century, early 20th century relic rooted in anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic bigotry that's found in 37 state constitutions and generally bar aid from going to religious schools. And the argument that these guys settle upon is that while the federal constitution under Zellman, maybe it permits states to establish school choice programs. Fine, we accept this. But even though that's the case, states have their own state constitutional interest in ensuring public money does not go to parents who want to use it at religious schools. And that argument was at the heart of Espinoza. So after the Montana legislature establishes a school choice program, the Montana Supreme Court invokes the state Blaine Amendment to invalidate the program. It says the Montana Blaine Amendment forbids the creation of programs that allow parents to send their kids to go to schools. This case goes up to the Supreme Court, and the court holds that this violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. The court says Montana can't invoke its constitution to discriminate based on religion. It can't say that in Montana it's permissible to have programs that anyone can participate in on one condition. They're not religious. And the court concludes with this great language that sets the terms for the states going forward. It says, quote, a state need not subsidize private education. But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they're religious, end quote. And so there are other cases like Trinity Lutheran, which comes before Espinosa, and Carson that comes after Espinosa, which support and build on Espinosa. And these cases also do like a lot of work in clearing away the remaining free exercise arguments. But essentially, Zellman and Espinosa do a great job of answering the major federal constitutional questions about choice and kind of clear the way for states to enact educational choice programs. Well, thanks for that, David. And I'm sure some folks listening will appreciate that background. And let's get more to the case at hand here. So, Ariella, I want to turn to you. And I guess we should also express our thanks for your willingness to play this historic role in shaping education law in Massachusetts as the lead plaintiff here. Can you tell us about yourself and what motivated you and your family to, I guess this is kind of a courageous stand, take the stand for school choice and religious liberty? So I'll just start by saying thank you so much for having me on. Great to be here with all of you. And I just really want to express my deep appreciation to David and to IJ for supporting us every step of the way and to Pioneer Institute, which was a driving force beyond starting this case. It's a very, very emotional thing for me to be part of this lawsuit from both the perspective of a parent that has a child that's directly impacted and also a professional who's been working on issues and supporting families who are really twisting themselves into pretzels and trying so hard to get their kids services and are often forced to make really heartbreaking decisions about their children's education based on the lack of access to services in Massachusetts. So it was a very big deal. I'm not going to make light of the decision. It was a really hard decision as to take on this responsibility and the visibility, especially when you have a child that has educational needs and that you're already worried about and you're already trying to support in every way you can. Making this decision to be a plaintiff in a case like this wasn't something we took lightly at all. But I will say it was the support from David and IJ and Jamie, a pioneer, that really gave us the strength we needed to move forward. Well, thanks for sharing that and tell us a bit about your story there. So, David, I'm going to turn to you to get everyone acquainted with the case itself. Again, this is Hellman v. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Could you just give us the contours of the case? And also, I mean, you left off talking about Espinoza. Kind of explain the connection between this case and Espinoza as well. Sure, I'd love to. So Espinoza and Hellman share the same basic logic. And that logic says that the government doesn't have to create a public benefit program. But what it does, it has to adhere to basic constitutional principles. Like not discriminating against those who exercise constitutional right. Like in Espinosa, the Supreme Court holds that Montana doesn't have to create a scholarship program, but once it does, it can't discriminate against people who exercise their First Amendment rights. It can't say this benefit is available to you unless you practice your religion. And this is a principle. It's something called the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine that the Supreme Court has applied in a variety of cases. It basically means that just as the government can't prevent you from exercising your right, It also can't induce you not to exercise your rights by offering something valuable in exchange, like a public benefit. And that's Helmut. So in Massachusetts, there's this great law. It says that all students with special needs are entitled to special education services in the regular educational environment, i.e. their schools. But the government, and it freely admitted this at oral argument, and it admitted this repeatedly, actually, the government imposes a regulatory condition solely on parents who exercise their fundamental constitutional right to send their children to private schools. And this regulation, which it created supposedly to comply with the state Blaine Amendment, says that students who are in private school because of their parents' choice can't receive their special education services in school. So even though the statute says kids have to receive services in schools, and even though the school is the most logical place for them to receive services, it's literally the only place in Massachusetts they can't receive them. They can't even receive them virtually if they happen to be sitting in their private school. Instead, if they want to get services, these kids have to leave their classes and schools multiple times per day and multiple times per week. And that's something that defeats the purpose of them attending private school in the first place. And something that Ariella pointed out to me before oral argument was that the more disabilities a kid has, the more of a penalty the regulation acts on the parents' choices. because the more time still has to be removed from school and carted across town, the more school he's going to miss. It's worth noting that this provision doesn't apply to public school kids. It doesn't apply to kids who the government places in private schools. It only applies to kids whose parents place them in private schools. So what that means is that I could send my kid to private school and he wouldn't receive the services there. But if the government sent my kid to the same exact private school, he would receive the services there. It's a truly perverse situation. Well, Ariel, I want to turn back to you and get even more background on the case. I mean, you know, almost a decade ago, you know, the outlines of this case were ones that you actually worked on and discussed with your ADAC colleague, Steve Perla, as well as Pioneer Institute. So I know the case is relatively recent, but could you tell us about some of the developmental background of this case and how you thought about it based on your experience as a parent, a lawyer, and as an advocate for Jewish gay schools in Massachusetts. Yeah thanks So I say I started out I was actually working for combined Jewish philanthropies at the time and started reading the special education law in Massachusetts We had just moved from New York where my oldest son was getting some services at his private school from the public school district And it was all just like a very smooth process. He got the support he needed in his Jewish day school education classroom, along with his peers. We didn't have to drive him anywhere. He wasn't like pulled out. He wasn't made to feel that he was different in any way. He just got the services he needed. It was a very smooth process. When we moved here to Massachusetts, I was told, well, you know, you're not going to be able to get those services. There really aren't a lot of government programs that support kids in private schools. And I remember as an advocate, one of the first things I read was Chapter 71B, the Massachusetts special education law. And I read it and I was like, oh, my goodness, this is like the same law as New York. It's very, very comparable. Our kids have the same rights to special education services provided through an IEP as public school students do. And I was, like, really excited about this until I started to talk to people around me. And everyone said, no, no, no, that might be what the law says. But in reality, in practice, almost nobody gets services because you have to take your kid to the public school in the middle of the school day, disrupt their education, drive them there. So, you know, if you're working, that's basically impossible. And this just doesn't work in practice. So as a matter of like practice, kids cannot get services they need if they're in private school. And that was very disappointing to me. And so we started, we built a coalition, the Jewish J school community together with the Catholic community. And we started to approach the Department of Education and to speak with them about this, to start to advocate, to say, hey, you know, the law says our kids should have the same access to services. And through that process, we actually discovered that our students weren't even getting their fair share of federal IDEA funds, the proportionate share funding that's designated for students attending private schools. And what we discovered was that there was a misinterpretation about the way that federal law interplayed with state law here in Massachusetts. And the belief at that time was that by offering services, offering an opportunity for kids to walk into the public school for services, that that was enough to fulfill the district's state law obligation to provide services to students under federal law. And so we went through a whole administrative complaint process together with our Catholic school colleagues. And U.S. Ed came down and said that Massachusetts was not implementing the federal law correctly. And as a result of all that work, we started to get the federal funding to flow here in Massachusetts, which for decades had not been flowing to students in Massachusetts. And we actually did a paper on that together with Pioneer and really brought this issue to light. And I'll say it has really dramatically changed the landscape for kids here in Massachusetts. So as David mentioned, kids with, like, more mild needs can get some of their services covered with these federal funds. But they're nowhere near enough to cover all the services that kids need, especially as they have more moderate to severe disabilities. And so after we resolved that issue with the federal funding, we started to have additional conversations regarding the state law funding. But we didn't really make enough progress. And I think, you know, from the very first day I read the law, I kind of said to myself, well, someone's got to bring a lawsuit, which of course you never want to bring a lawsuit with advocacy, right? But I just read it and I was like, gosh, someone's got to bring a lawsuit. But we really didn't have the wherewithal at that time to bring a lawsuit to get that going. And I'm really just incredibly grateful to Pioneer and to IJ for making this a reality because it's not just about my family. It's about so many families. There are so many families that are impacted by this. The number of calls I get per week from parents who are really just heart-stricken about this, who are just really, it is so devastating. There is so much loss already when you have a kid with a disability. There are already so many other opportunities. There are so many things, so many choices that have been taken out of your control. And losing the opportunity to participate in a faith-based education when you've already encountered so much loss is just a step too far for so many of these families. And the pain out there is real, and it's great, and I'm really grateful to, IJ and Pioneer for taking a stand and for giving voice to all of these parents, including me and David, so that hopefully our kids can get the services that they are entitled to under the law and they can be included and they can be part of our faith-based communities. You know, it's interesting, Arielle, the point you made about New York to Massachusetts, same law but different treatment. David, I want to talk about another neighboring state, Maine, where we had the Carson and Makin decision. And you referenced this in your oral arguments for this current case, Helmand. Could you talk about how Carson relates to the arguments that you've made? And I know you already mentioned Blaine amendments, but if there's any other details regarding that you need to articulate here, why don't you go ahead and enlighten us a little bit more? So in Carson, which, as you mentioned, was an IJ case, Maine had a voucher program, or it still has a voucher program, but Maine has a voucher program for rural kids that kids could use to attend public and private schools. But the way that the program was written, it allowed kids to attend any private school so long as it wasn't, quote, sectarian. It basically said you can go to any religious school you want so long as it isn't too religious. And when it went up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court said you can't do that. You can't design a program in such a way that it's open to all unless you exercise a constitutional right in a way that we don't like. You can't do that because that's discrimination based on a right. And the situation here is exactly the same. In Carson, Maine designs the program to discriminate against people who chose a religious education, i.e. people who exercise their free exercise rights. And in Hellman, Massachusetts designed their program to discriminate against people who choose a private education, i.e. people who exercise their rights recognized in Peers versus Society of Sisters, one of the venerable Supreme Court decisions. But Massachusetts, just like Maine, they can't do that. It can say we're only providing public school benefits, but it can't say we're providing this across the board unless you exercise this fundamental right. But that's exactly what's happening here. And the whole reason why Massachusetts thinks it can do this is because of its aid amendment. So you mentioned the aid amendments. This is something that was, we talk about aid amendments, blade amendments, they're essentially the same thing. But Massachusetts was the first to create any kind of an anti-aid amendment. So it basically gets forged by the nativist Know Nothing Party in the early 1850s in response to the wide-scale Irish Catholic immigration into Boston. So all these immigrants are coming in. It causes a nativist backlash. And one of the ways that the backlash gets manifested is with public resources. So the Know Nothing Party is able to put forth and get into the Massachusetts Constitution this anti-Aid Amendment that says that no public money can go to sectarian educational institutions. And so sectarian, you know, we might think of it as being almost like a benign and neutral word, but back then it was a code word for Catholic. So this was a way of basically instituting anti-Catholic discrimination in the state constitution. And the animus in Massachusetts is so strong that it goes on from just Massachusetts and goes to the rest of the country where there's also dealing with the rise of changing demographics. And so this goes throughout the 19th century, and it almost becomes a national constitutional amendment, an amendment to the federal constitution, and it fails. But after it fails, many other states, 37 states in total, end up adopting their own Blaine amendments that provide for no public funds going to sectarian institutions. And what ends up happening is that in Massachusetts, in the early 20th century, the animus toward immigrants has had not quite died down. And that there are people who are concerned that even though we have this state constitutional amendment that bars any going to sectarian institutions, there are still some Catholics, some other people who we don't like getting aid through this. So we're just going to expand this anti-it amendment so it applies to all private institutions, regardless of whether they're religious. And it's this bigoted relic that was forged in the 1850s that 175 years later is used by Massachusetts to ban kids with special needs from receiving services in their schools. And it's just a great illustration of both the irrationality but also the long-lasting effects of bigotry. Wow, David, thank you for that explanation. First of all, thank you for helping us to understand that I was going to ask about how these amendments are negatively affecting special needs kids because I wasn't making the connection between religious schools or sectarian schools and students with special needs. So now I understand the connection and how far reaching it has become. So I want to follow up with you. Some of the distinctive features of the Massachusetts Know Nothing and anti-aid amendments like Michigan's, are like Michigan's, that they restrict wider parental access, not only to religious but private schools. And so can you talk about that element more of these amendments and how a positive ruling in the Hellman case could offer a wider legal remedy for the Bay State parents? So, you know, nationwide, there are 37 states that have blade amendments. Most of these blade amendments have been neutralized either by the state's own state Supreme Court or by the rulings in Espinoza and Carson. But there are five states. There's South Carolina, Alaska, Michigan, Massachusetts, and Hawaii, where either the plain text of the state Blaine Amendment or a state Supreme Court just outright bars aid from going to any private educational institution. And our belief is that in the same way that the religious Blades unconstitutionally discriminate based off of a person's free exercise rights, these Blades amendments unlawfully discriminate based on a person's Meyer Pierce rights, which, again, these are all parents have this fundamental right to direct the education upbringing of their children, including by sending them to private school. So in the same way that the religious blades say you can't provide aid to people who are practicing their religion, we believe that these blade amendments discriminate against people who are exercising their peers' right to send their children to private school. So if we were to prevail at Hellman, the immediate impact in Massachusetts would be huge. There are thousands of kids over many decades who have been unlawfully denied services, and that's huge. You have all these kids who have special needs, and they're statutorily entitled to these services. But because of this regulation, they have not been able to receive services at all. And by being able to access these services, they'll have entirely different futures, and that's huge. And we don't quite know what the impact is beyond that. We have to look at other laws in Massachusetts that potentially discriminate based on the exercise of parental rights and the provision of a public benefit. That would be something that we'll research once this case is decided. But the bottom line is that if we win one of the oldest, most venerable rights, the right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of one's children will be shown to have real force in limiting the power of the state to discriminate. And it will have the same sort of power as other constitutional rights. So it really has the potential to have an immediate impact on the kids and the parents who are being discriminated against in this program. But it also may have an impact in the future when other discrimination against kids and parents may come to light Very interesting Ariella I want to ask you I curious you are a mom your wife and a lawyer I very interested to know what it been like for you and your family deciding to move forward with this case and how supportive the religious, school, local, and Massachusetts legal communities have been in assisting your efforts. I have to say, you know, again, I approach this as a mom for my own child, but also as a professional. I'm not practicing as a lawyer. I'm really involved in this from an advocacy perspective. And, you know, it's one thing to participate as an advocate and to represent this is what's happening to families. And it's another thing entirely to have your family be very visible in the spotlight playing the role of the lead plaintiff and specifically to have your child that already needs additional support in that spotlight. That is a really vulnerable place to be as a parent. And I actually want to say this was a moment that we actually drew courage from my son. And he was just nine years old at the time. And my husband and I were going back and forth, back and forth. My husband is a rabbinic leader in the community. And we were talking about it just in terms of our own family, the way that I can't even describe to you how unbelievably painful it was when we had to take Ezra out of his Jewish day school, put him in public school to get services. And then the back and forth trying to get those services until we ultimately said, you know, this is not going to work for us. The unbelievable pain that we went through as a family going through that, but also all of our friends who went through that. And from a rabbinic perspective, all the people in our community who have gone through that. So we were sort of going back and forth, back and forth as parents about, should we do this? Should we not do this? And I approached my son. He was nine or 10 years old at the time. And I described it to him, you know, in terms he could understand. And he looked at me just squarely in the eyes. I'll never forget this moment because it was one of my proudest moments as a parent. And he started naming names like of different kids in his class. at first I didn't understand the connection because it was just like a disjointed series of Jonathan and Sam and David and I didn't follow but when we got to the fifth or sixth name I realized these are all kids these were all buddies of his that had had to leave his class because they wouldn't get the special education services that he needed and he said to me mommy I'm doing it for all of them it's not just about me and I my my heart like swallows in that moment And I was just so happy with him. And I have to say, for all the challenges he's had, he is just such a fantastic kid. And we drew strength from him and from his courage. I think that was what gave us the strength to move forward with this. That is so powerful. Thank you for sharing that. And go Ezra, you know, for... He is so fantastic. That's amazing. That is amazing. David, I want to ask you what it's like working on a First Circuit case that could have a pretty wide-ranging constitutional implication for school choice and for religious liberty. And what makes you hopeful that the First Circuit or perhaps ultimately the Supreme Court might rule in your favor on Hellman? Yeah, it's wonderful. It's every lawsuit in the stream. You know, I'm thrilled to work with parents like Ariella and Ezra. I mean, you heard from Ariella what a wonderful kid he is, and also organizations like Pioneer doing such important work. And I'm really grateful to IJ where we can do this kind of work. So if you're listening and want to apply to IJ, just go to our website. As for, you know, what makes me hopeful, you know, you don't want to predict things, but there are a couple of things that I think are worth noting. The first is that in our case, you know, even the government concedes that they're imposing a condition on these parents. They conceded it repeatedly at a rule argument. And that's huge. You know, there's a mountain of supreme court precedent that says the government can't even indirectly coerce a person into not exercising it right. And here the coercion isn't indirect, it's direct. It's literally in the regulation. The regulation literally dangles a valuable benefit before parents of disabled children, parents of disabled children, and tells them their kids can fully access the benefit on one condition, which is that they're not similar to kids to private school. The condition is you don't exercise your right, your kid gets the benefit in full. That's blatant coercion. The second thing that gives me a little bit of hope is that we're not asking the First Circuit to do something radical. We're just asking it to apply longstanding precedent to the set of facts here. We spoke earlier about cases like Espinoza and Carson. You know, when Espinoza and Carson came out, they too were applying longstanding precedent. Espinoza was built on a case called Trude New Lutheran, which in turn was built on numerous other cases that had come out over the previous four decades. And the line of cases that we're talking about here involves not just Trinity Lutheran, Carson, and Espinoza, but a century's worth of cases related to the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine that go back over a century. So we're not asking the First Circuit to do something that it's never done before. We're just asking it to apply longstanding principles to the facts here. And we think things are pretty straightforward. And, you know, we hope that for the sake of kids like Ezra and for families of the Hellman's, as well as all the other families who are hoping for us to prevail, that we'll get a decision that will make them happy. I love that. Thank you. And congratulations. Ariella, I want to give you the last word here. In closing, you and IJ began working on your case a couple of years ago now. Talk to us about what surprised you the most about the Massachusetts or really the American legal process thus far, and would also love for you to talk about the pivotal role that David and the IJ team have played in this case in supporting your family and other plaintiffs and just anything else that you want to leave us with in terms of, you know, your involvement, Ezra's involvement, and what you want to see out of this. Yeah, thank you. So I'll say, you know, certainly when I was in law school, you know, you read all these cases and you focus on legal principles and precedents and the arguments and all of that. And, you know, with the greatest respect, I think David did such a fantastic job arguing our case at the First Circuit. But what I'm left with as a plaintiff, as a mom, is really like all the emotion behind it, right? That there are real people that are plaintiffs in these lawsuits, right? This is just like a real, real human impact. You think about this, you know, principles, constitutional principles, the legal argument. I think David did a great job of laying it out. I think it's a very clear, you know, cohesive, coherent legal argument. But really to understand the real life implications for so many families, not just our family, and what it takes really to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit, I really admire, you know, all the people who have decided to play a role in all of these crucial constitutional lawsuits. It really does take courage. And again, I'm going to give the credit for that really to Ezra. He was really the one that made this decision and gave us the strength to go along with it, as well as to David and Jamie for really supporting us every step of the way. But I will say to you, like, again, there are real, real people behind this. This is not just a matter of legal precedent. This is not just a lawsuit. I could go on and on and on with the stories, the heartbreak that I hear from families, kids who have left the Jewish school to go to public school to get services, in some cases just to come right back because they're bullied, because they face anti-Semitism in the public schools, because you know what, the public schools didn't have exactly what they needed to succeed. Parents need choices, right? I think we could all accept that, you know, no adult should be forced into any particular job. No, no one should say, you know, Arielle Hellman's got to be an accountant. That would be a terrible, terrible position for me to have to do every single day. That's not where my passion lies. Yeah. We take our kids and we take complicated kids with medical complexity, with emotional complexity, with academic complexity. And we say, you don't have a choice. You've got to go to the public school. That is the only option for you. And this becomes more and more, you know, just, It becomes less of a choice for these children when they don't have financial resources and when the level of disability goes up. So, you know, it is a religious kids that are impacted by this. Yes, other private schools are also, you know, they're covered by the law. But as a practical matter, a lot of those kids are in private schools that have a lot more resources to address the needs of those students or the families have more resources. But when you make a decision from a religious perspective to send your kid to a faith-based school, often you don't have the resources to pay for private special education services. And so there are a lot of kids in our community that are going without or are forced to make choices that are not what they would have chosen if their child did not have a disability. And so I'm incredibly grateful to IJ, to David Hodges, and to Pioneer for taking this on, for giving voice to all of these children and all of these families. and I really hope the First Circuit comes out our way because I know it will make a world of a difference to all of these children. Well said. Thank you both so very much for joining us today. And thank you for your courage and your hard work. Thank you. Thank you. Wow, Alicia, I mean, that was special, wasn't it? I mean, I was going into this thinking that, well, you know, I'm going to get a lot of legal background and argument. And then, you know, it's what a treat to have Ariel here to lay it all out there, lay her heart and soul out there. Yeah, it was really powerful. And as you know, Albert, I'm not a private school choice person. But to hear these cases, to understand what this is all about, particularly the Hellman case you think about. She talks about, you know, Ezra and who this is about. It really helps you to put it in perspective. And she said it, right? It's not legalese and about the law. It's really about real kids who are not getting what they need and what they should have access to. So just a great interview. And like you said, both David and Ariella are very passionate. And it was a very powerful interview. Well, Alicia, thanks for those comments and for co-hosting as usual. Yes. Great to be with you as always. Let me leave everyone with a tweet of the week. This one comes from Education Next. Quote, a close look at the records students present to colleges illustrates this rush to conformity. What does that mean, conformity? Well, it's a fascinating article about our admission system. And so take a look at that article. It's pointing out how students kind of look the same, and it's at least on these applications, it's actually this challenge of trying to stand out. So I think this offers a lot of thought for our admission systems and higher ed in general. So I'll leave that article for you listening to Consider. And make sure to join us next week for another exciting episode. We're going to have Dr. Richard Phelps, who is the author of the Pioneer Institute's recent research paper, Post-MCAS, Assessments and Accountability in Massachusetts. So join us for another discussion. And until then, happy Valentine's Day and enjoy. Yes, take care. Thank you.