NY High Court Court Hears Yeshiva Case: State Still Wants to Close 6 Schools Despite Budget Law Passage

Attorneys representing yeshivas appeared before New York State’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, on Wednesday to challenge education regulations that could penalize private religious schools for not being “substantially equivalent” to public institutions. The hearing follows a reversal by a lower appeals court, which reinstated penalties after a prior ruling had blocked them.

The case is being led by the advocacy groups Parents for Educational and Religious Liberty in Schools (PEARLS), along with Agudath Israel and Torah Umesorah.

During the proceedings, the justices questioned PEARLS attorney Avi Schick about whether the case still held relevance, considering that recent changes to the state budget created new compliance options and allowed schools several years to adjust.

Schick argued that the issue remains pressing, noting that parents are still receiving notices from the State Education Department (SED) urging them to transfer their children to different schools.

In a shocking revelation, SED’s attorney stated that the agency will continue with plans to withdraw funding and get parents to unenroll from six schools already labeled non-compliant, despite new legislation granting institutions between two and seven years to align with state standards. The department’s attorney also appeared uncertain about whether affected schools would have the chance to appeal these decisions. Schick cited this as evidence of immediate risk, adding that as many as 18 additional schools could face similar actions.

Representing the State/SED, attorney Beezly Kiernan appeared to soften earlier positions that students must be removed from non-compliant schools. Instead, he emphasized that the SED is focused on withdrawing financial support, including transportation and other services.

In a notable development, Kiernan acknowledged—for what Schick said was the first time in the decade-long legal battle—that parents may legally supplement their children’s education outside the classroom. Still, he maintained that there’s no legal precedent for doing so within a school deemed non-equivalent.

When the court asked why educational services couldn’t simply be provided outside the school building, Schick responded that the institutions in question already contribute meaningfully toward substantial equivalency, making the location of instruction irrelevant.

He further argued that the mere delay of penalties doesn’t remove the threat or diminish the court’s need to act now. Waiting for enforcement could leave families with no judicial recourse if future courts decline to revisit the issue.

The justices also pressed Schick on whether a school that fails to meet equivalency standards can still be defined as a “school.” Schick replied that equivalency is not the sole criterion for being recognized as a school, pointing out that even homeschooled children—who are not enrolled in any school—still receive publicly funded educational services.

At one point, three justices appeared to align with the initial ruling by NY’s trial-level State Supreme Court Justice Christina Ryba, who held that the SED lacks the authority to force students to unenroll from their schools.

One justice observed that the recent changes in the law have been celebrated by much of the community. Schick responded that not all stakeholders share that view, with many still concerned that the regulations infringe upon their religious rights and constitutional freedoms.

---