Top NY Court Rules State Cannot Close Schools or Force Parents to Unenroll Children

New York’s Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the State Education Department (SED) does not have the authority to shut down private schools it deems “non-equivalent” to public schools, concluding a legal battle spanning more than a decade over parental rights and yeshiva education.

The ruling affirms the position of attorney Avi Schick, representing PEARLS (Parents for Educational And Religious Liberty in Schools), who argued in favor of upholding a 2023 trial court decision. That earlier ruling by Justice Christina Ryba held that while the state can assess educational quality, it cannot force school closures. Instead, parents retain the right to provide any missing instruction through outside means.

The Court of Appeals also struck down the SED’s effort to shutter six specific schools it had previously determined to be non-equivalent.

Under Justice Ryba’s 2023 decision, families whose children attend such schools would still be entitled to state services, including special education and transportation. Ryba had also concluded that the legal responsibility for ensuring a child receives a sufficient education rests with the parents, not the school, meaning that schools could not be penalized for failing to meet equivalency standards.

In 2024, however, the Appellate Division reversed Ryba’s ruling, asserting that the state could indeed close schools. Later that year, parents of students enrolled in the six non-equivalent schools received official letters telling them to transfer their children elsewhere.

Yeshiva advocates appealed that ruling to the Court of Appeals. During oral arguments last month, Schick reiterated that Ryba’s approach was consistent with state law. In a notable moment, the SED’s lawyer, for the first time in the case, admitted that parents could supplement a school’s instruction, though not if the school itself was deemed non-equivalent. Schick seized on that admission to argue that any school offering parts of the mandated curriculum should still qualify as a “school,” so long as parents supplemented where necessary.

Meanwhile, New York State’s most recent budget included new regulatory pathways for yeshivas to meet equivalency standards. Still, Schick pointed out that the SED had continued with its plans to close the six already-flagged schools, even under the updated rules.

Although the Court of Appeals clearly ruled that the state cannot force school closures or require parents to unenroll their children, the justices paradoxically claimed to be upholding the Appellate Division’s earlier ruling.

Schick clarified the contradiction in comments to media outlets, explaining that while the Court of Appeals accepted certain legal theories from the Appellate Division, the outcome mirrored Justice Ryba’s ruling in practice.

In a statement following the decision, PEARLS said:
“Since schools can’t be closed by SED and children can’t be forced to unenroll, the practical effect is that parents can supplement any missing instruction through home-schooling or at an after-school program. That is what we have been advocating since the outset of this litigation.”

The statement concluded:
“We hope that the State Education Department and the Department of Education will now do the right thing. If they don’t, we will continue to fight for our mosdos and our mesorah.”