Nebraska has now officially enacted a restrictive homeschool related law after its language (previously in LB 1224) was folded into Legislative Bill 937 and signed into law by Governor Jim Pillen. While supporters are celebrating this as a milestone for “child safety,” the reality is that this new law represents a significant shift in how the state approaches homeschooling families—and it should concern anyone who values both parental rights and due process.
At the heart of this policy is a troubling principle: a family can face restrictions on their educational choices not because they have been found guilty of wrongdoing, but because they are under investigation. That distinction matters. In our system of justice, investigations are meant to determine facts—not to function as a basis for penalties. Yet this law allows government action to be taken before those facts are established.
Child protective services investigations can be triggered by reports based on suspicion. While many reports are made in good faith, it is widely acknowledged that a significant number of investigations are ultimately unsubstantiated. That means families who have done nothing wrong can still find themselves entangled in a process that temporarily limits their freedom to direct their child’s education. Under Nebraska’s new law, that limitation now includes the inability to withdraw a child to homeschool during the investigation period.
This creates a scenario where an allegation—whether mistaken, exaggerated, or even malicious—can set in motion a chain of events that restricts a parent’s rights before any determination has been made. Even if the family is later cleared, the restriction has already taken effect. As HSLDA rightly observed, “In American law, we assume innocence until guilt is proven. And we assume that parents are acting in their children’s best interests unless proven otherwise. L.B. 1224 runs counter to both.” That concern goes to the heart of what is at stake.
Supporters of the law point to provisions that prevent individuals convicted of crimes against children from homeschooling. Few would dispute the importance of protecting children from known abusers. But that provision should not distract from the restriction the law creates—one that applies to families who have not been convicted of anything. It is the investigative trigger, not the post-conviction safeguard, that represents the most far-reaching change.
A Troubling National Strategy
What makes this development especially significant is that it does not stand alone. National advocacy organizations have made clear that Nebraska is just the beginning. The strategy used here—embedding homeschool restrictions within a broader bill like LB 937—demonstrates how these policies can be advanced more easily and with less public scrutiny.
California has already faced similar threats—and that history should not be forgotten. In 2018, bills introduced by Senator Susan Eggman and Assemblymember Jose Medina, backed by the same national advocacy group behind the Nebraska effort, proposed sweeping changes that would have fundamentally reshaped homeschooling in the state. Those measures included increased oversight, expanded reporting requirements, and new mechanisms for state intervention. Had they passed, they could have effectively ended the decades-long framework of relative homeschool freedom that California families have relied on.
Those bills were ultimately stopped, but not because the underlying philosophy disappeared. The same arguments—centered on oversight, data collection, and “closing gaps” in regulation—are now reappearing in other states under the banner of child safety. Nebraska’s new law shows that this strategy is gaining traction and can succeed when conditions align.
Where Is This Coming From?
The bill is backed by the same group—CRHE—that supported the troubling homeschool bills in California in 2018. One of those bills aimed to rewrite all homeschool-related statutes. Another would have required home inspections for every homeschool family.
The Coalition for Responsible Home Education (CRHE) is a national advocacy organization. It has consistently pushed for increased government oversight of homeschooling. Its approach assumes that homeschooling lacks sufficient accountability.
Because of this, CRHE promotes expanded regulation. This includes more data collection, reporting requirements, and greater state involvement in family life. The goal is a more structured and monitored system.
Make Homeschool Safe Act
One of the clearest examples of this agenda is the proposed “Make Homeschool Safe Act” (MHSA). This model policy would significantly reshape homeschooling across the country. It calls for mandatory registration of homeschool families and increased reporting requirements.
It also expands access for government officials to monitor home education. In addition, it lowers the threshold for state intervention. In many cases, that intervention could be triggered by allegations rather than proven wrongdoing.
While these proposals are framed as child safety measures, they represent a deeper shift. They move away from the presumption that parents act in their children’s best interests. Instead, they move toward a system where homeschool freedom exists only under ongoing government supervision.
California’s Vulnerability
California is particularly vulnerable to this kind of policy migration. Its size, political climate, and ongoing debates around education and child welfare make it a prime target for proposals that expand state authority in the name of protecting children. Lawmakers may point to Nebraska as a precedent, arguing that similar measures are both reasonable and necessary.
This is why clarity is so important right now. Protecting children and preserving parental rights are not mutually exclusive goals. Existing laws already make abuse and neglect illegal and provide mechanisms for intervention when there is credible evidence of harm. The question is whether the state should go further—restricting fundamental parental decisions based on allegations that have not been proven.
Nebraska’s new law answers that question in a way that should give us pause. It allows the state to step into the parent-child relationship at an earlier stage, before due process has run its course. That shift may be temporary in any given case, but it establishes a precedent that could be expanded over time.
For families in California and across the country, the lesson is clear: what happens in one state rarely stays there. Policies like this often spread, especially when they are backed by organized national efforts. Now that this policy has been signed into law, the focus will inevitably turn to other states. Those who care about homeschool freedom and about maintaining a proper balance between government authority and family autonomy would be wise to pay close attention, stay engaged, and be prepared to respond.