Lincoln, Neb. parents sue the state over a free‑education monopoly that forces families to choose between public schooling and paying full tuition. The complaint alleges a constitutional violation.
Parents Challenge Nebraska’s Free‑Education Monopoly
The Federalist obtained the complaint, which argues that Nebraska’s refusal to fund alternatives violates the First Amendment. The lawsuit claims families must pay full tuition for any alternative.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) represents the Jacobsen and Menter families, saying Nebraska ranks among the worst states for parental choice. No tax credits, scholarships, education savings accounts, or similar programs exist to enable alternatives.
“Nebraska cannot ban parents from teaching their own children their own values—so instead it penalizes them for exercising that recognized right,” NCLA counsel Christian Clase said. He added that the state’s actions directly conflict with constitutional protections.
State law makes it a Class III misdemeanor for any parent who does not enroll a child in public, private, parochial, or homeschooling. Violators face up to three months in jail and a $500 fine.
Only public schools provide a free education; private or homeschool options require families to cover all costs themselves. The suit frames education as a form of government speech.
Jacobsen daughter was told she must use girls’ bathrooms with transgender students and use false pronouns for students who claimed the wrong gender. She also faced critical race theory‑style lessons that labeled entire races as oppressors or victims based on skin color.
Menter family removed two children after a district sticker endorsed alternative sexuality and a librarian recommended transgender books. A child became very forceful in urging parents to cut driving after school taught carbon‑dioxide as a pollutant that would destroy the planet.
The lawsuit asserts that government‑mandated curriculum compels parents to “pay to escape government indoctrination.” Both families now bear costs they would not incur if they could send children to public school without penalty.
They ask the court to declare that conditioning public‑school benefits on acceptance of government‑approved instruction violates the First Amendment. The remedy sought is a judicial declaration of the violation.
NCLA senior counsel Zhonette Brown said, “Courts have long recognized speech rights in education; protecting parents’ educational speech is the next logical step.” She emphasized that protecting parental speech is a logical extension of existing education precedents.
Nebraska spent $19,038 per student in 2024‑25, while LPS spent $17,432; private elementary tuition averages $7,100 and high school $11,000. These figures illustrate the financial burden families face when opting out of public schools.
The complaint cites Supreme Court precedent in Mahmoud v. Taylor, holding that the government cannot condition a free public education on parental acceptance of instruction that violates free‑exercise rights. It also invokes the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, which bars the state from coercing people to surrender enumerated rights.
The suit does not request curriculum changes or legislative action; it seeks a declaration that the funding scheme is an unconstitutional speech violation. Damages would equal per‑pupil funding from LPS.
