The War of State Power and Parents’ Rights in Homeschooling
To Regulate or Not to Regulate?
“Isolated, abused, and helpless.” This is a possible description of some homeschooled children within the current U.S. system of regulations. With few or no homeschooling regulations in many states, experts have identified multiple potential harms to the children who participate in this alternative educational form. These include the potential for physical abuse due to a lack of reporting or supervision requirements, public health risks stemming from the absence of vaccination record requirements, and educational quality risks. The continuing lack of regulations is due to efforts by the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) to maintain the status quo and campaign for parents’ rights in relevant cases nationwide. In the years since the coronavirus pandemic, the homeschool population has surged, along with questions regarding the regulation of this growing educational method. The potential injury to both the education and physical well-being of homeschooled students that the current regulations allow is unacceptable. The issue is in attempting to determine where to draw the line between the power of the state and parents’ rights. This is an issue under much debate and will likely continue to be for some time. Regardless, this absence of regulations is harmful to the education of millions of people, and its perpetuation is unjust.
Parents’ Choice vs. State Power in Childhood Education: A Historical Dive
Historically, there have been a few cases that give supporting precedent to the arguments for both sides. Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) was the first of many. It was mainly concerned with the role of due process in deciding whether or not the state could prevent children from learning non-English languages. Meyer, a teacher, taught a 10-year-old child German and was convicted due to a violation of a Nebraska law disallowing the teaching of any language other than English before a child has passed the 8th grade. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled the law unconstitutional because it violated individual liberty under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Rather than simply freedom from bodily restraint, it also includes the right of a teacher to teach and of parents to choose how they want to raise their children. Additionally, they noted that while the state has an undisputed interest in fostering a population that can intelligently take part in civic discussions, the method it chose was unreasonable. This gave credence to both
In relation to this, Pierce v Society of Sisters (1925) was one of the first cases to examine the parents’ right to choose in education versus the state’s right to govern it. In this instance, a private schooling organization known as the Society of Sisters started the case in response to the Compulsory Education Act of 1922, which required that parents must send their children to public school between the ages of eight and sixteen. The Supreme Court unanimously found that the state can not constitutionally force children to be educated through only public school, which is a foundational pillar in the arguments of the homeschooling movement.
In contrast, in Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), SCOTUS ruled against parents’ rights. The lawsuit disputed whether a state statute could prohibit minors from selling newspapers or similar items in public places. The reason for the dispute involved a child willfully breaking that law by selling religious pamphlets with her mother. In the majority opinion, Rutledge asserts that rights of both religion and parenthood can be limited when in the public interest. His statement laid substantial groundwork for the claims of those who argue for the state’s power in issues of child safety over parents’ rights.
Originally, homeschooling was functionally illegal in most states due to compulsory education laws. This changed in the 1980s following a cultural push to move away from public education as well as a notable court case, Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). It was one of the most monumental cases for the large religious faction of the homeschool movement, establishing the precedent that taking children out of public school for religious reasons to raise them in the Amish religion was allowed under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. As a result, there was more support for the process of homeschool legalization, creating further justification for people who put their children in homeschool for religious reasons.
Opposing Factions: The Organizations Fueling the Conflict
Today, the main forces involved in this ongoing legal and political war are HSLDA and organizations such as the Coalition for Responsible Home Education (CRHE), Homeschool Alumni Reaching Out (HARO), and the National Education Association (NEA) that advocate for the regulation of homeschooling. HSLDA supports parental rights and the ongoing deregulation of homeschooling. Despite having limited members, they hold sway over a large portion of the homeschooling community, resulting in significant legal and political pressure in the form of inspiring mass advocacy for the cause and against any potential regulations.
CRHE is the main organization in opposition to HSLDA, advocating for reasonable oversight of homeschooling. Many of the members are previously homeschooled students concerned about the mistreatment of children and the poor education quality that current homeschooling regulations allow. HARO was created to bring to light abuse in homeschooling families and does not oppose homeschooling in itself, but rather irresponsible homeschooling used to “create or hide abuse, isolation, and neglect.” NEA is the nation’s largest teaching association and has the most vehement anti-homeschool position of any similar organization. It consists of professional educators and holds that, if homeschooling is permitted at all, it should be subject to strict regulations. The efforts of these smaller pro-regulation organizations have largely been ineffective, but they continue to oppose the deregulation of homeschooling.
Over the years, there have been many incidents regarding the abuse of homeschooled children, and the main legal battleground takes place through the legislative responses to them. This is a nationwide issue, as every state has slightly different regulations on homeschooling. As it pertains to education, it would be considered a matter of state jurisdiction, but it is also a question of parents’ rights to raise their children. This means SCOTUS precedent is required to distinguish where the line begins and ends regarding constitutional rights versus states' rights.
Why Not to Regulate
In the legal realm, HSLDA argues that a parent’s right to raise their children takes precedence over the state’s duty of education, maintenance, and regulation. They use Wisconsin v. Yoder as a strong support for homeschooling on the basis of free exercise of religion. The majority opinion was that the State failed to show that its interest in “establishing and maintaining an educational system overrides the defendants' right to the free exercise of their religion.” This lends support to the ability of the religious faction of homeschooling parents to exercise their religion through homeschooling. The decision in Meyer v. Nebraska is also often used because the Court’s decision states that a person’s fundamental liberty interests include the right to bring up children and give them an education suitable to their station in life. This allows HSLDA to claim that making educational decisions for one’s children, and by extension, homeschooling, is a right under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Pierce v. Society of Sisters also gave them the judgment that it is unconstitutional for the state to force children to be solely educated in public schools. Although similar to the opinion in Meyer, Pierce more directly supports the parents’ right to homeschool under minimal provisions.
Why to Regulate
The opposing side builds its arguments based on the state’s authority to govern education. In Meyer v. Nebraska, the court acknowledged the state’s power to mandate attendance, reasonably regulate schools, and assign a curriculum. This maintained the state’s power to require and regulate education and could be applied as support to allow the state to supervise or regulate the basic curriculum requirements for homeschooling. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the same case where it affirmed the right to attend private school, the court acknowledged the power of the state to reasonably regulate and supervise all schools, including their teachers and students. This broad statement specifically supports state supervision and education regulation, which is a large portion of what the pro-homeschool regulation side wants. Prince v. Massachusetts is perhaps one of the strongest supporting cases for the state’s power holding priority over parents' rights. Within the case, it is stated in the majority opinion that the family is not above regulation by the state if it is in the public interest, and rights of religion and parental rights are also able to be regulated, given the right justification. Essentially, if strong concerns are present regarding a child’s well-being, the state can act in its role as parens patriae to create regulations such as requiring supplemental public school attendance to prevent those concerns, even if it may go against the parents’ choice. Using the precedent set forth, the parents’ choice coalition can and does construct a persuasive legal argument for regulating homeschool.
Peering into the Abyss: A Look into the Future
It is difficult to predict how the law will be applied on the state level in these matters because of the variety of legislation and regulations imposed by each state. Supreme Court precedent is also inconsistent with two of the foundational cases for parental rights, simultaneously affirming the states’ right to regulate education. Examining the possible outcomes of this struggle based on precedent, a ban on homeschooling is very unlikely, as is the complete deregulation of homeschooling. Based on the current state of affairs, it may remain as is for a time, but internationally, many other countries have erred in favor of more regulations on homeschooling, so there is a strong possibility that some states might eventually follow suit.
The Children Left Behind: Implications and Absence of Resolution
The future remains uncertain, but no matter what happens, the outcomes from this ongoing legal war will affect the state’s power to regulate and supervise education and assumed parental rights. Due to their heavy financial and pedagogic investment, the homeschooled community will be the most impacted by any future decisions. The states will also be influenced to some degree, particularly regarding resources and powers. In a state where more regulations are imposed, that state will have a larger burden requiring income and manpower to enforce and supervise those regulations. With more regulations, fewer children would likely suffer from educational neglect or abuse. On the other hand, homeschooling parents would have a diminished amount of freedom in the raising and education of their children. With fewer curricular regulations, some children might not be given the education to be adequately prepared for adult life, but the state would expend fewer resources on supervising homeschooling parents. There is a possibility that the rates of educational neglect and abuse could increase as abusive parents obtain more freedom, but some parents could utilize this deregulation to good effect to educate their children with fewer restrictions on their curriculum and fewer educator requirements, leading to a lower barrier to entry. The issue is more complex than it at first appears and may never fully be resolved. Still, something must be done to protect those children who continue to suffer domestic and educational abuse under the current status of homeschooling.
Disclaimer: This research article is solely intended to be an opinion piece published by students that is corroborated by facts and credible sources. Under no circumstances should any article published by the UNLV Undergraduate Law Review be considered as actual legal advice or legal counsel.
Sources
Bartholet, Elizabeth. 2019. “Homeschooling: Parent Rights Absolutism vs. Child Rights To Education & Protection.” Harvard Public Law Working Paper 19, no. 23 (June). 10.2139/ssrn.3391331.
“FAQs About Homeschool Alumni Reaching Out.” 2014. Homeschoolers Anonymous. https://homeschoolersanonymous.net/2014/08/29/faqs-about-homeschool-alumni-reaching-out/.
McReynolds, James C. n.d. “Pierce v. Society of Sisters.” Oyez. Accessed November 30, 2025. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/268us510.
“Meyer v. State of Nebraska.” n.d. Oyez. Accessed November 30, 2025. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/262us390.
“Parent, Child, and State: Regulation in a New Era of Homeschooling.” n.d. Accessed November 30, 2025. https://sc.edu/study/colleges_schools/law/student_life/journals/jled/editions/_documents/2022_51_2/hamilton-parent-child-and-state-regulation-in-a-new-era-of-homeschooling.pdf.
“Prince v. Massachusetts | 321 U.S. 158 (1944).” n.d. Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Accessed November 30, 2025. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/321/158/.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters." Oyez. Accessed October 28, 2024. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/268us510.
Scientific American. 2024. “Children Deserve Uniform Standards in Homeschooling.” May 14, 2024. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/children-deserve-uniform-standards-in-homeschooling/.
“When Was Homeschooling Legalized in the United States?” 2025. Legal Clarity. https://legalclarity.org/when-was-homeschooling-legalized-in-the-united-states/.
West, Robin L. 2009. “The Harms of Homeschooling.” Philosophy & Public Policy Quarterly 29 (3/4). https://www.academia.edu/97231570/The_Harms_of_Homeschooling?email_work_card=view-paper
“Wisconsin v. Yoder | 406 U.S. 205 (1972).” n.d. Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Accessed November 30, 2025. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/205/#tab-opinion-1949691..
