Defending Educational Freedom

Defending Educational Freedom: How Lawfare Threatens Alaska Homeschool Families
Executive Summary
On September 29, 2025, Judge Laura Hartz allowed a lawsuit targeting Alaska’s homeschool allotment program to proceed into discovery. Led by attorney Scott Kendall—who already lost a similar case before the Alaska Supreme Court in 2024—this renewed legal challenge represents a dangerous escalation of lawfare against parental choice and educational freedom.
This paper examines:

The constitutional weakness of Blaine Amendment provisions and their discriminatory origins
How federal Supreme Court precedent has systematically dismantled Blaine-style restrictions
The real agenda behind this lawsuit: restricting parental authority over education
Why Alaska families should reject this attack on homeschool freedom

The bottom line: This lawsuit weaponizes a 19th-century bigoted constitutional provision to override 21st-century parental rights—and it must be opposed.

The Discriminatory Roots of Blaine Amendments
A History of Religious Bigotry
Alaska’s Article 7, Section 1—like similar provisions in over 30 state constitutions—traces its lineage directly to the failed 1875 Blaine Amendment, a proposed federal constitutional amendment designed explicitly to prevent Catholic schools from receiving public funds.
Historical Context:

In the 1870s, waves of Catholic immigration triggered nativist backlash
Public schools were Protestant in character, often requiring Bible readings from the King James Version
When Catholics sought funding for their own schools, Protestant lawmakers responded with constitutional barriers
James G. Blaine, a Maine congressman with presidential ambitions, proposed a federal amendment to prohibit public funding of “sectarian” (read: Catholic) schools
Though the federal amendment failed, states adopted similar provisions—including Alaska when it drafted its constitution in 1956

The Original Intent Was Discrimination
These amendments weren’t about separation of church and state—they were about protecting Protestant control of education while excluding Catholics. Public schools could teach Protestant Christianity, but Catholic schools were shut out of any public support.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing in Espinoza v. Montana (2020), called Blaine Amendments “the shameful pedigree of the state’s constitutional provision” and noted their “bigoted roots.”
Why This Matters Today:
Alaska’s constitution still carries this discriminatory DNA. When Scott Kendall and his clients invoke Article 7 to block homeschool families from using allotments at religious institutions, they are resurrecting a clause born from anti-Catholic prejudice. The tool has been repurposed, but the discrimination remains.

The U.S. Supreme Court Has Rejected Blaine Logic
Over the past eight years, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a trilogy of decisions that systematically dismantle Blaine Amendment enforcement—especially when states try to exclude religious options from neutral public benefit programs.
Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (2017)
The Case: Missouri denied a church-run preschool access to a playground resurfacing grant available to other nonprofits.
The Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that excluding an otherwise qualified organization solely because of its religious identity violates the Free Exercise Clause.
Key Principle: Religious institutions cannot be categorically barred from neutral public programs.
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020)
The Case: Montana offered tax-credit scholarships for private school tuition but excluded religious schools under its Blaine Amendment.
The Ruling: The Supreme Court struck down Montana’s exclusion, ruling that once a state creates a benefit program, it cannot discriminate against religious participants.
Key Principle: Blaine Amendments cannot be used to exclude religious schools from public benefit programs.
Justice Thomas (concurring): “The no-aid provisions of the 19th century hardly evince a tradition that should command our respect.”
Carson v. Makin (2022)
The Case: Maine provided tuition assistance to families in rural areas without public high schools—but excluded religious schools from the program.
The Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Maine’s exclusion violated the Free Exercise Clause, even when the religious school provided “sectarian” instruction.
Key Principle: States cannot exclude schools from public programs simply because they incorporate religious teaching.
What This Means for Alaska
Federal law now trumps discriminatory state provisions. While Alaska’s constitution may prohibit direct funding to religious schools, the Supreme Court has made clear that parents have a constitutional right to choose religious education when participating in neutral public programs.
Kendall’s lawsuit tries to resurrect a Blaine-style barrier that the Supreme Court has spent a decade tearing down. It’s constitutionally obsolete before it even gets to trial.

Why the Alaska Supreme Court Already Rejected This Argument
Scott Kendall has been here before—and he lost.
In 2022, Kendall filed the first lawsuit challenging Alaska’s correspondence school allotment system. A superior court judge initially ruled the program unconstitutional, but in June 2024, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the statute itself is facially constitutional.
What the Court Said:
The Supreme Court determined that the correspondence school allotment program does not inherently violate Alaska’s constitution because:

Funds are allocated to families, not institutions
The program is neutral toward religion—it doesn’t favor or disfavor religious choices
Any benefit to private or religious schools is indirect and results from private parental choice, not state endorsement

Kendall’s New Strategy: Attack Implementation, Not Law
Having lost on the statute, Kendall is now targeting how districts administer the funds. His argument: even if the law is constitutional, the way families spend their allotments creates an unconstitutional “direct benefit” to religious institutions.
This is lawfare—not legal principle.
When you lose on the law, you attack the people following it. Kendall is now dragging Mat-Su, Anchorage, Denali Borough, and Galena City school districts into court, demanding they justify every reimbursement to every family, hoping to find something—anything—that looks like “direct benefit.”

The Real Agenda: Controlling Parents, Not Protecting the Constitution
This lawsuit isn’t about constitutional interpretation—it’s about who gets to decide how children are educated.
Who Filed This Lawsuit?
The plaintiffs include:

Kristine McVeigh – former teacher and education advocate
Margo Bellamy – former Anchorage School Board president
Tom Begich – former state senator
Scott Kendall – attorney representing the plaintiffs

These are establishment education insiders who believe public education means government schools—and only government schools.
What They Really Want

1. To Eliminate Parental Choice
   By attacking homeschool allotments, they seek to force families back into traditional public schools or make private/religious education financially impossible.
2. To Dictate Educational Content
   They want to ensure that only state-approved curriculum and values are taught—erasing the diversity of educational approaches that make Alaska’s correspondence system successful.
3. To Punish Families Who Dare to Choose Differently
   This lawsuit sends a chilling message: If you use your allotment in ways we don’t approve of, we will sue your school district and drag you through the courts.
   The Hypocrisy Is Glaring
   Consider this:

Alaskan families receive Permanent Fund Dividends (PFDs) and can spend them on private school tuition—no one calls that unconstitutional.
Families can use federal Pell Grants at religious colleges—no one challenges that.
Teachers receive public salaries and donate to churches—no one claims the state is funding religion.

Why is it constitutional for parents to use PFDs at religious schools, but not correspondence allotments?
Because this lawsuit isn’t about constitutional consistency—it’s about controlling educational choices.

How Homeschool Allotments Actually Work
Kendall’s lawsuit depends on misrepresenting how Alaska’s correspondence school system operates. Here’s what actually happens:
The Operational Reality

Families enroll in a public correspondence school program (like Mat-Su, Galena, or Denali Borough).
The state allocates funds to the school district for each enrolled student.
Parents work with certified teachers to create individualized learning plans.
Parents purchase approved educational services and materials (curriculum, tutoring, classes, extracurriculars).
Districts reimburse parents for documented, approved expenses.

Key Point: The state does not write checks to private schools. It reimburses parents for educational services—just like it reimburses employees for business expenses.
The Constitutional Distinction
Private Choice Doctrine: When government funds reach religious institutions only as a result of independent private choices, there is no constitutional violation. This principle has been upheld repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the Court upheld Ohio’s school voucher program because funds reached religious schools only through parental choice.
In Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn (2011), the Court allowed tax credits for donations to religious school scholarship funds.

Alaska’s allotment system follows the same logic: Parents decide. The state doesn’t direct funds to institutions—it empowers families.

The Dangers to Alaska Homeschool Families
If Kendall’s lawsuit succeeds, the consequences for Alaska families will be devastating.
Immediate Threats

1. Loss of Educational Freedom
   Families will be forced to choose between:

Giving up allotments entirely
Restricting purchases to secular-only providers
Re-enrolling in traditional public schools

2. Elimination of Religious Education Options
   Any correspondence school that allows allotments to be used at religious institutions could be sued. Districts may simply ban religious vendors to avoid litigation.
3. Bureaucratic Nightmare
   Districts will face endless scrutiny over every reimbursement. Families will be required to prove that every expenditure is “secular enough” to pass constitutional muster.
4. Chilling Effect on Educational Innovation
   The lawsuit will discourage districts from offering flexible, family-centered programs. Why innovate if you’ll just get sued?
   Long-Term Constitutional Erosion
   If Alaska courts rule that indirect benefits to religious institutions violate the constitution, it sets a precedent that could:

Threaten scholarship programs
Challenge tax credits for educational expenses
Undermine parental authority in education policy
Invite future lawsuits targeting any public program that might indirectly benefit religion

This isn’t just about homeschool allotments—it’s about the scope of parental rights in Alaska.

Why Blaine Amendments Must Be Removed
Alaska should join the growing number of states that have repealed or reformed their Blaine provisions. Here’s why:

1. They Are Rooted in Bigotry
   Blaine Amendments were designed to discriminate against Catholics. Keeping them in our constitution legitimizes that discrimination.
2. They Conflict with Federal Constitutional Rights
   The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that Blaine-style exclusions violate the Free Exercise Clause. State constitutions cannot override federal constitutional protections.
3. They Harm Families, Not Institutions
   Blaine provisions don’t just restrict schools—they restrict parents. They tell families: You can have educational freedom, but only if you abandon your religious convictions.
4. They Are Out of Step with Modern Education Policy
   School choice, charter schools, education savings accounts, and homeschool support programs all recognize that parents—not bureaucrats—are best positioned to make educational decisions. Blaine Amendments are relics of an era when government monopoly over education was unquestioned.
5. Alaska Voters Should Decide
   The Alaska Constitution should reflect the values of Alaskans today—not the prejudices of 19th-century nativists. Let the people vote on whether Article 7 still serves Alaska families.

A Call to Action: Defend Educational Freedom
What Alaska Families Should Do

1. Contact Your Legislators
   Demand that they:

Support legislation protecting homeschool allotments
Propose a constitutional amendment to repeal or reform Article 7, Section 1
Publicly oppose Kendall’s lawsuit

2. Support School Districts
   Mat-Su, Galena, Denali Borough, and Anchorage districts are under legal attack for serving families. Show up at school board meetings. Write letters of support. Make it clear that families stand with them.
3. Speak Out
   Write op-eds. Post on social media. Testify at public hearings. The narrative matters—and right now, Kendall and his clients are framing this as a “defense of the constitution.” It’s not. It’s an attack on families.
4. Prepare for Discovery
   If you’re a correspondence school family, document your expenditures carefully. Be ready to defend your choices. This lawsuit is designed to intimidate—don’t let it.
5. Challenge the Blaine Amendment
   Support efforts to amend Alaska’s constitution. Article 7 is a relic of bigotry—it’s time to remove it.

Conclusion: This Is About Power, Not Principle
Scott Kendall lost his first lawsuit because the Alaska Supreme Court recognized that correspondence school allotments respect parental choice and constitutional boundaries. Now he’s back—not with a better legal argument, but with a more invasive strategy: dragging families and districts into court to scrutinize every purchase, every reimbursement, every educational choice.
This is lawfare.
It weaponizes a discriminatory constitutional provision to punish families who dare to educate their children differently. It ignores eight years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent dismantling Blaine-style barriers. It seeks to replace parental authority with bureaucratic control.
Alaska families deserve better. They deserve a constitution that respects their rights, not one that resurrects 19th-century bigotry to deny them educational freedom.
The choice is clear:

Stand with families, freedom, and the U.S. Constitution
Or stand with Kendall, control, and a discredited Blaine Amendment

Alaska’s homeschool families are watching. And they will remember who stood with them—and who stood in their way.

Key Talking Points for Public Use
✓ “This lawsuit tries to revive a discriminatory clause that federal courts have already rejected. It’s constitutionally obsolete.”
✓ “The Alaska Supreme Court already upheld this program. Kendall lost—so now he’s attacking families instead of the law.”
✓ “Allotments empower parents, not institutions. The Constitution protects that choice.”
✓ “If families can use PFD checks at religious schools, why can’t they use allotments? This double standard exposes the real agenda: controlling parents.”
✓ “Blaine Amendments were designed to discriminate against Catholics. It’s time Alaska removed this bigoted relic from our constitution.”
✓ “We welcome transparency—but when the facts come out, this lawsuit will be exposed as political theater, not a constitutional crisis.”
✓ “This is lawfare. When you can’t win on principle, you attack the people. Alaska families won’t be intimidated.”