How Lawfare Threatens Alaska Homeschool Families
Defending Educational Freedom in Alaska
How lawfare is weaponizing discriminatory constitutional provisions to attack parental choice and homeschool families
The Immediate Threat
On September 29, 2025, Judge Laura Hartz denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging Alaska’s homeschool allotment program, allowing the case to move forward into discovery.
What’s At Stake:
- 4 School Districts Under Attack: Anchorage, Mat-Su, Denali Borough, and Galena City
- Thousands of Alaska Families who rely on correspondence school allotments
- Educational Choice for all Alaska parents
- Constitutional Rights protected by the U.S. Supreme Court
This isn’t the first time. Attorney Scott Kendall filed a similar lawsuit in 2022 and lost when the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the program in June 2024. Now he’s back with a new strategy: instead of attacking the law, he’s attacking how families use their allotments.
Who’s Behind This Lawsuit?
The plaintiffs represent the education establishment fighting to maintain control over how Alaska children are educated:
- Scott Kendall – Attorney who already lost this case before the Alaska Supreme Court
- Kristine McVeigh – Former teacher and education advocate
- Margo Bellamy – Former Anchorage School Board president
- Tom Begich – Former state senator
Their Real Agenda:
These establishment insiders believe public education means government schools only. They want to eliminate parental choice, dictate educational content, and punish families who dare to educate their children differently.
The Discriminatory Origins of Blaine Amendments
Alaska’s Article 7, Section 1—the constitutional provision Kendall is weaponizing—has a shameful history rooted in 19th-century anti-Catholic bigotry.
1870s: Wave of Anti-Catholic Sentiment
Catholic immigration triggered nativist backlash. Public schools were Protestant in character, requiring King James Bible readings. When Catholics sought their own schools, Protestant lawmakers responded with constitutional barriers.
1875: The Blaine Amendment
Maine Congressman James G. Blaine proposed a federal constitutional amendment to prohibit public funding of “sectarian” (Catholic) schools. While the federal amendment failed, over 30 states adopted similar provisions.
1956: Alaska’s Constitution
Alaska adopted its own Blaine-like provision in Article 7, importing this discriminatory framework into state law.
Today: Still Being Used to Discriminate
Kendall and his clients are resurrecting a clause born from anti-Catholic prejudice to restrict educational freedom for all Alaska families.
What Justice Clarence Thomas Said:
“The no-aid provisions of the 19th century hardly evince a tradition that should command our respect… [They have] the shameful pedigree of the state’s constitutional provision” and their “bigoted roots.”
— Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020)
The U.S. Supreme Court Has Rejected Blaine Logic
Over the past eight years, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued three landmark 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 Issue: Missouri denied a church-run preschool access to a playground resurfacing grant available to other nonprofits.
The Ruling: 7-2 decision that excluding an 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 Issue: Montana offered tax-credit scholarships for private school tuition but excluded religious schools under its Blaine Amendment.
The Ruling: 5-4 decision striking 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.
Carson v. Makin (2022)
The Issue: Maine provided tuition assistance to families in rural areas without public high schools—but excluded religious schools from the program.
The Ruling: 6-3 decision 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 U.S. 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.
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 Determined:
- 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, Galena, Denali Borough, and Anchorage districts into court, demanding they justify every reimbursement to every family, hoping to find something—anything—that looks like “direct benefit.”
How Homeschool Allotments Actually Work
Kendall’s lawsuit depends on misrepresenting how Alaska’s correspondence school system operates. Here’s the operational reality:
The Five-Step Process:
- 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 Constitutional Point:
The state does not write checks to private schools. It reimburses parents for educational services—just like it reimburses employees for business expenses.
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.
The Hypocrisy Is Glaring
- 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 PFD checks at religious schools, but not correspondence allotments?
Because this lawsuit isn’t about constitutional consistency—it’s about controlling educational choices.
The Dangers to Alaska Homeschool Families
If Kendall’s lawsuit succeeds, the consequences for Alaska families will be devastating.
School Districts Under Legal Attack
Families Who Could Lose Educational Choice
Direct Funding to Religious Schools (That’s the Reality)
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.
Five Reasons 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.
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
Alaska families cannot afford to sit on the sidelines. Here’s what you can do right now:
đź“ž Contact Your Legislators
Demand they support legislation protecting homeschool allotments, propose constitutional amendments to reform Article 7, and publicly oppose Kendall’s lawsuit.
🏫 Support School Districts
Mat-Su, Galena, Denali Borough, and Anchorage are under legal attack for serving families. Show up at school board meetings and write letters of support.
📢 Speak Out
Write op-eds, post on social media, testify at public hearings. The narrative matters—don’t let Kendall frame this as “defending the constitution.”
đź“‹ Document Everything
If you’re a correspondence school family, document your expenditures carefully. Be ready to defend your choices. Don’t be intimidated.
⚖️ Challenge the Blaine Amendment
Support efforts to amend Alaska’s constitution. Article 7 is a relic of bigotry—it’s time to remove it.
🤝 Stand Together
Connect with other homeschool families, form advocacy groups, and prepare for the discovery phase. Strength in numbers.
Key Talking Points for Public Use
Use these messages when contacting legislators, writing letters to the editor, or engaging on social media:
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.