Posted in Homeschool Law, tagged First Amendment, Georgetown University Law Center, Home School Legal Defense Association, Jennifer Karinen, Meyer v. Nebraska, Michigan, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Supreme Court, The Georgetown Law Journal, Wisconsin v. Yoder on October 5, 2019| Leave a Comment »
Record: Jennifer Karinen, “Finding a Free Speech Right to Homeschool: An Emersonian Approach.” The Georgetown Law Journal, 105, No. 1 (2016): 191-215. [Abstract]
Summary: Karinen, a lawyer in New York and graduate of Georgetown University Law Center, in this article explains that a right to homeschool, including for secular purposes, can be assumed from the free speech protections of the First Amendment. (more…)
Posted in Homeschool Law, Politics of homeschooling, tagged 14th Amendment, 1st Amendment, Constitution, Employment v. Smith, Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development, Linda Wang, Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, St. John’s University, strict scrutiny, Troxel v. Granville on May 5, 2015| Leave a Comment »
Record: Linda Wang, “Who Knows Best? The Appropriate Level of Judicial Scrutiny on Compulsory Education Laws Regarding Home Schooling” in Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development, 25 (Winter 2011); 413-448.
Summary: Wang, who earned her J.D. from St. John’s University School of Law, here seeks to make sense of the conflicting and hazy Constitutional principles at play in cases regarding homeschooling law and liberty.
There are two basic issues. First is the 14th Amendment, which says that no state can deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without “due process of law.” This is the due process clause, which has been used in the ensuing decades to do all sorts of things, from extending the bill of rights to the states to protecting rights that are not explicitly mentioned in the Amendment itself, most notably the “right to privacy.” It is this right to privacy jurisprudence that is most important for homeschooling law. Interestingly, it was the cases on birth control and abortion (both of which many homeschoolers renounce) that secured the right to privacy on which constitutional claims for homeschooling rights rests. Cases like Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and Troxel v. Granville have made it clear that the right of a biological parent to direct the education of his or her child is fundamental, meaning that if a state is going to abridge that right it needs to have a compelling interest for doing so and must do so in the least invasive means possible. This is called strict scrutiny, and it is the highest threshold possible for government infringement of individual rights.
The problem is that many, many lower court decisions have validated compulsory education laws, which infringe on parental homeschooling freedoms, at lower levels of scrutiny (often called “rational basis” or “intermediate scrutiny”). Why? Because the same Supreme Court that declared parenting a fundamental right has also declared on many occasions that public school laws are valid forms of “reasonable relation.” The Supreme Court ITSELF has not applied strict scrutiny to compulsory school laws despite its own holding that parental rights are fundamental. (more…)
Posted in Homeschool Jurisprudence, Homeschool Law, tagged Autonomy, citizenship, civics, immigrant homeschooling, Life as Education, Meyer v. Nebraska, NAEP, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Rob Kunzman, unschoolers on April 3, 2012| Leave a Comment »
This post reviews Robert Kunzman, “Education, Schooling, and Children’s Rights: the Complexity of Homeschooling” in Educational Theory 62, no. 1 (February 2012): 75-89.
Kunzman, as readers of this blog know very well, is one of the leading scholars currently working on homeschooling. He is author of the important book Write These Laws on Your Children: Inside the World of Conservative Christian Homeschooling
A couple of years ago I reviewed an earlier piece by Kunzman on government regulation of homeschooling that dealt with some of the same themes he addresses here. Back then Kunzman argued against various kinds of government regulations, concluding that only tests evaluating a homeschooler’s grasp of basic literacy and numeracy should be mandated.
This current article is a bit more theoretical. It aims not so much to set out an explicit policy proposal as to argue for why certain domains should be considered legal rights (and thus be scrutinized by the government) while other, perhaps equally important domains, should not. (more…)
Posted in Homeschool Jurisprudence, Homeschool Law, tagged Due Process, Employment Division v. Smith, First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, free exercise, hybrid rights, Linda Wang, Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, St. John's University School of Law, strict scrutiny, Troxel v. Granville on September 3, 2011| 5 Comments »
This post reviews Linda Wang, “Who Knows Best? The Appropriate Level of Judicial Scrutiny on Compulsory Education Laws Regarding Home Schooling” in Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development, 25 (Winter 2011); 413-448.
Wang, a recent J.D. from St. John’s University School of Law, here seeks to make sense of the conflicting and hazy Constitutional principles at play in cases regarding homeschooling law and liberty. (more…)
Posted in Homeschool Jurisprudence, Minority Homeschooling, tagged Bakke, Brown v. Board of Education, Choate Hall and Stewart LLP, Consuelo Lickstein, Grutter v. Bollinger, Meyer v. Nebraska, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District no. 1, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Wisconsin v. Yoder on August 12, 2011| 4 Comments »
This post reviews Consuelo Valenzuela Lickstein, “Race and Education at a Crossroads: How Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 and Wisconsin v. Yoder Shed Light on the Potential Conflict Between the Black Homeschooling Movement and K-12 Affirmative Action Programs” in The Journal of Gender, Race and Justice 13 (Spring 2010): 835-857.
Lickstein, an associate at Choate Hall and Stewart LLP and recent graduate of University of Iowa College of Law, here presents an interesting thought experiment about homeschooling and diversity in public schools.
Posted in Homeschool Jurisprudence, Homeschool Law, tagged D.C., Due Process, Equal Protection, free exercise, fundamental liberty, HSLDA, hybrid rights, John Holt, Kimberly Yuracko, Meyer v. Nebraska, Oregon v. Smith, People v. DeJonge, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Sherbert v. Verner, Timothy B. Waddell, Vanderbilt Law Review, Washington, Wisconsin v. Yoder on July 22, 2011| 17 Comments »
This post reviews Timothy B. Waddell, “Bringing it all Back Home: Establishing a Coherent Constitutional Framework for the Re-Regulation of Homeschooling” in Vanderbilt Law Review, 63, 541-598. [Available fulltext here]
Waddell, a recent graduate from Vanderbilt Law School and now a clerk for the U.S. District Court of Alabama, here presents a constitutional argument for increased regulation of homeschooling and much else besides. (more…)
Posted in History of Homeschooling, Homeschool Jurisprudence, tagged Brigham Young University, California Court of Appeals, Chad Olsen, In re Rachel L., J. Reuben Clark Law School, Meyer v. Nebraska, People v. Darrah and Black, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Rob Reich, Shawn Peters, Wisconsin v. Yoder on October 12, 2009| Leave a Comment »
This post reviews Chad Olsen, “Constitutionality of Home Education: How the Supreme Court and American History Endorse Parental Choice” in Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal 2 (2009): 399-423
Olsen, a law student at BYU’s J. Reuben Clark Law School, here provides a fascinatingly detailed, though flawed, analysis of the famous In re Rachel L. case, the 2008 California Court of Appeals decision that unleashed a national outcry by finding that California law did not permit homeschooling. (more…)
A second, fully revised edition of my 2008 book Homeschool: An American History, was published in March of 2017. Get it here!
.
Homeschooling Research Notes 