NY Court Strikes Balance on Secular Standards, Religious Schools

The New York Court of Appeals in June delivered a carefully balanced ruling on the quality of education in New York’s private Jewish schools known as yeshivas.

In Parents for Educational and Religious Liberty in Schools (PEARLS) v. Young, the court unanimously affirmed the authority of the State Education Department to evaluate New York’s “substantial equivalency” law in these schools—but held that schools can’t be closed and students can’t can be forcibly removed for failing to meet those standards.

This dual outcome preserves the state’s ability to declare that a school falls short of minimum secular education standards while leaving final educational decisions in the hands of parents.

It is, in many ways, a modern echo of Wisconsin v. Yoder, the 1972 US Supreme Court case that exempted Amish parents from sending their children to high school, acknowledging that compulsory education laws must sometimes yield to religious liberty and parental rights.

The Legal Holding

Judge Jenny Rivera made clear that the education commissioner acted within her statutory authority in promulgating regulations requiring private schools to provide education “substantially equivalent” to public schools. If a school fails to meet this bar, it “shall no longer be deemed a school which provides compulsory education” under the law.

But the decision drew a firm line. Parents must ensure compliance, whether by enrolling their child elsewhere or supplementing education in other ways.

This is a significant parental right. The state may assess and declare a school’s shortcomings but may not directly intervene by shutting it down or forcing student transfers. Enforcement, in other words, is indirect and rests on the shoulders of parents.

Constitutional Balancing Act

This outcome hews closely to longstanding constitutional traditions. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the Supreme Court in 1925 invalidated a law requiring all children to attend public school, emphasizing that “the child is not the mere creature of the State.” Yoder further carved out space for religious exemptions from educational mandates when they threatened to undermine deeply held faith practices.

In the current case, the state isn’t demanding conformity but disclosure: It may say that a school fails to meet secular academic standards but can’t impose compliance by force. That’s a model more akin to nutritional labeling than prohibition—it informs but doesn’t coerce.

The compromise is legally and politically significant. It preserves the state’s role in protecting children’s educational rights while acknowledging that in a pluralistic society, different communities may have different priorities. It also avoids a constitutional showdown that a more aggressive enforcement scheme might have provoked.

Reactions from Stakeholders

Both sides of the debate are claiming partial victory. PEARLS, which represents Orthodox Jewish schools and parents, emphasized that “SED cannot take the enforcement actions it had previously announced.” They praised the court’s acknowledgment that “parents and not the State have control over the upbringing and education of their children.”

Supporters of stronger oversight, such as Young Advocates for Fair Education, hailed the ruling’s affirmation that substantial equivalency is not optional.

“This decision soundly rejects arguments that the regulations overstep state law,” YAFFED said.

Still, the court’s choice to leave enforcement up to parents creates uncertainty. What happens if parents ignore the finding of noncompliance? Technically, they could be subject to truancy proceedings—but those tools are rarely used and politically fraught.

Mere attendance in a noncompliant school isn’t proof of a violation, since out of school supplementation is permitted. It’s unlikely that this disclosure-based system will be enough to compel yeshivas that are deemed non-equivalent to change their curricula.

The Funding Question

An additional open issue concerns state and federal funding. The ruling doesn’t directly address whether schools deemed noncompliant can continue to receive publicly funded resources such as textbooks, transportation, or special education services. Some funding is tied directly to students and delivered through schools, raising the question: If a school isn’t “recognized,” as providing an equivalent education, can it receive those funds?

This is a complex legal terrain. While the state has withheld funding from certain yeshivas, that decision could be challenged. The Supreme Court has struck down efforts to deny religious schools access to generally available public benefits, most notably in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and Carson v. Makin. These cases affirm that once a state provides a public benefit, it can’t exclude religious institutions solely because of their religious status. As such, they provide strong legal precedent for challenging funding denials to yeshivas on constitutional grounds.

If funding is withheld solely because a school is religious, that will violate constitutional protections. But if it’s denied because the school fails to meet minimum academic requirements, the outcome may be different–but maybe not if the objection to the standard is religious. So too, sometimes this depends on whether the funding is essentially for a school that is equivalent, or any school, or essentially to ameliorate the poverty of the parents.

Withholding lunch from hungry children in a noncompliant school seems cruel. The court’s silence on this issue leaves room for further litigation and legislative clarification.

This decision may become a national template. It gives regulators the ability to assess and declare educational quality without wading into direct regulation of religious curriculum.

Other states—particularly those with significant private religious schooling populations—may look to New York’s model as a way to balance enforcement with constitutional respect for parental autonomy and religious freedom.

By meeting in the middle, the court has perhaps preserved both halves: educational standards and religious liberty.

The case is In the Matter of Parents for Educ. and Religious Liberty in Schs. v. Young, N.Y., No. APL-2024-00125, 6/18/25.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Michael Broyde is law professor at Emory University and the Berman Projects Director in Emory’s Center for the Study of Law and Religion.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines