The new term at the U.S. Supreme Court arrived this fall after one of the most consequential years for K–12 education in recent memory, with major rulings touching on special education, parental rights, religion in schools, and federal education programs. As those decisions ripple, courts nationwide remain a central force in shaping how public schools operate.
From transgender student rights and student speech to immigration and religious expression, a series of cases aimed at resolving some of education’s most contested questions could shape day-to-day school policies, student experiences, and the boundaries of school districts’ authority in the years to come.
Here’s a look at major education-related rulings from late September through mid-December.
New Supreme Court term puts transgender student rights in the spotlight
The last U.S. Supreme Court term was among the most significant in recent years for K-12 education, with the justices issuing major rulings on special education, the federal E-rate program for school internet connections, and parental rights to exclude their children from LGBTQ+-themed lessons.
The court also deadlocked in a case on religious charter schools, leaving for another day the question of whether states may directly provide public funding to religiously affiliated schools.
The new term opened Oct. 6 with at least one major education issue already on the docket: A potentially landmark pair of cases about transgender students’ participation in girls’ sports, to be argued early next year.
Louisiana’s Ten Commandments law gets full federal appeals court review
A full federal appeals court said on Oct. 6 that it will review the constitutionality of Louisiana’s law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools.
The decision raises the stakes for the Louisiana law, which was originally set to take effect on Jan. 1 of this year but had been blocked by a district judge and a three-judge appellate panel. It also keeps the issue from reaching the Supreme Court for now, where Ten Commandments supporters hope the court’s conservative majority will be receptive to their arguments.
- Read more about the Louisiana law here. 🔎
- Heightening the stakes over Ten Commandments school laws, the federal appeals court added a similar Texas law to the full court review in late October. 🔎
Supreme Court again declines a case on school gender identity policies
The Supreme Court on Oct. 14 declined to review another case involving school district practices on gender identity—its third since last year—with three justices suggesting that the issue is one of “great and growing national importance” that the court will likely need to address in the future.
Meanwhile, the justices declined to hear an appeal from conservative media figure Alex E. Jones of a $1.4 billion defamation and emotional distress judgment won by families of 15 victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School after Jones alleged on his internet and radio platforms that the tragedy was staged by actors.
The court also refused to take up the appeal of an Arizona mother who claims that a school principal retaliated against her for advocacy concerning school policies when he banned her from the school’s premises.
Appeals court backs school administrators who banned ‘Let’s Go Brandon!’ shirts
A divided federal appeals court sided with Michigan school administrators who barred students from wearing shirts with the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon!,” which gained traction as a coded message of opposition to then-President Joe Biden.
The 2-1 decision in October by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit provides some important guidance to educators on when they can prohibit speech promoting a “vulgar message” in schools, even if doesn’t contain actual expletives or is political in nature.
“The Constitution doesn’t hamstring school administrators when they are trying to limit profanity and vulgarity in the classroom during school hours,” said the decision in B.A. v. Tri County Area Schools.
Educational toy companies lead Supreme Court battle over Trump tariffs
The lead challengers in the Supreme Court against President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff program on imported goods are two Illinois-based companies that produce educational toys and learning materials sold nationwide.
Learning Resources Inc. and hand2mind Inc., both based in Vernon Hills, Ill., a Chicago suburb, sell hands-on learning toys such as Pretend & Play Calculator Cash Register, Spike the Fine Motor Hedgehog, and Botley, the Coding Robot. Their products focus on STEM learning, computer coding, social-emotional learning, reading, and mathematics.
- Read here about what the chief executive officer of both family-owned companies had to say. 🔎
- How is the Supreme Court leaning on this legal challenge? Read here. 🔎
Court rejects discipline of student whose post mocked George Floyd’s death
A federal appeals court has reversed the discipline of a New York state high school student over an off-campus social media post that mocked the 2020 death of George Floyd in the custody of Minneapolis police officers.
While the student’s post was “ill-advised” and “offensive,” schools “cannot—and should not—protect the school community from hearing viewpoints with which they disagree or engaging in discourse with those who have offended them,” said a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in New York City, that was unanimous in its bottom-line judgment.
The Oct. 30 decision in Leroy v. Livingston Manor Central School District wrestles with and provides guidance on a number of challenges that schools across the country are facing—how and whether to address student speech on social media, speech that provokes a community reaction and may disrupt school, and speech that some students find offensive or may perceive as targeting them.
Supreme Court to weigh birthright citizenship. Why it matters to schools
The Supreme Court on Dec. 5 agreed to take up the legality of Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrant parents, an issue closely watched in the education community.
The justices granted the administration’s request in Trump v. Barbara to consider whether the president’s Jan. 20 order complies with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, which says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Supreme Court orders new review of religious exemptions to school vaccines
The Supreme Court on Dec. 8 ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider its decision to uphold a New York state law that eliminates religious exemptions for required school vaccinations.
The justices asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in New York City, to give a second look to the claims of a group of Amish schools and parents in light of the high court’s decision last summer in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which held that parents have a free exercise of religion right to challenge certain aspects of the public school curriculum.
Supreme Court weighs IQ tests and other school records in key death penalty case
The Supreme Court heard arguments in December in a death penalty case in which the defendant’s school records from more than 40 years ago are playing a key role.
The central question in Hamm v. Smith is whether Joseph Clifton Smith, a 55-year-old Alabama man, has an intellectual disability that would make him ineligible for execution under a series of Supreme Court decisions beginning with the 2002 case of Atkins v. Virginia.
In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities would be a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
How one lawyer helped reshape special education at the Supreme Court
A new documentary is shining fresh attention on a major special education ruling the U.S. Supreme Court decided last term, spotlighting the lawyer who not only won that case but has played a role in several landmark victories for students with disabilities in recent years.
“Supreme Advocacy,” a 40-minute film from Bloomberg Law, pulls back the curtain on how a single case moves through the Supreme Court—from the time it is taken up by the justices through legal briefs, oral arguments, and then a decision. (Released Dec. 2, it is available for free on YouTube.)
