An opinion piece written by a person affiliated with the Heritage Foundation.
- Click here for it.
In 2021, Columbia University law professor Philip Hamburger argued that the U.S. public school system violates the First Amendment. “Education,” he wrote, “consists mostly in speech, and parents have a right under the First Amendment to exercise authority over what their children hear.” Forcing families to accept government messaging — or pay a steep price to escape it — amounts to unconstitutional pressure.
A lawsuit filed in Nebraska on Aug. 13 brings that argument into court — and could open a path toward universal school choice.
Justin Jacobsen and Timothy and Joanna Menter, parents in the Lincoln Public Schools district, are suing state and local officials in Lancaster County District Court. Represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, they are challenging Nebraska’s combination of compulsory education and public-school-only funding.
. . . Nebraska law requires parents to enroll children in a “public, private, denominational or parochial school” or to home-school them. Noncompliance is a Class 3 misdemeanor punishable by up to three months in jail and a $500 fine.
. . . Both families withdrew most of their children because remaining in public schools meant adopting educational speech they reject. The Menters’ elementary school displayed a classroom door sticker promoting alternative sexuality and transgender ideologies and pressed climate-change views the parents found fear-based. The Jacobsens’ school taught transgender ideology; the children were also exposed to divisive narratives suggesting certain races were victims and others were oppressors because of their skin color.
The parents’ complaint rests on three theories. First, the combination of a criminal education mandate and funding limited to government viewpoints directly abridges parents’ free-speech rights under the First Amendment. Education is inherently speech, and parents hold the primary right to speak or to choose who speaks on their behalf. Second, the same facts violate the Nebraska Constitution’s free speech clause, which state courts treat as mirroring the federal guarantee. Third, the arrangement creates an unconstitutional condition: that is, the state may not condition a valuable public benefit on the surrender of a constitutional right.
Pages
▼
Tuesday, August 25, 2026
From the Washington Post: Are public schools unconstitutional? A Nebraska court will decide.
Regarding the Core Curriculum
- Texas Core Curriculum.
- UH removes over 45% of courses from its ‘core’ curriculum to comply with SB 37.
- University of Houston slashes 40% of courses from its core curriculum.
- University of Houston regents approve removal of 133 courses from its core curriculum.
- University of Houston cuts 40% of core curriculum, including climate change and LGBT studies courses.
- UH removes over 45% of courses from its ‘core’ curriculum to comply with SB 37.
- University of Houston slashes 40% of courses from its core curriculum.
- University of Houston regents approve removal of 133 courses from its core curriculum.
- University of Houston cuts 40% of core curriculum, including climate change and LGBT studies courses.