From school restrooms to LGBTQ+ curriculum to disability rights, the nation’s courts weighed in on a wave of high-stakes education cases this spring.
Many of these developments will have far-reaching implications for how schools navigate student rights, civil liberties, and access to federally funded programs.
Here’s a look at some education-related court cases and stories from this spring. These cases span from mid-March through mid-June.
Idaho can restrict transgender students’ restroom use, appeals court rules
A federal appeals court has declined to block an Idaho law requiring public school students to use only the restroom and changing facilities corresponding to their “biological sex,” ruling that it likely does not violate the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause or Title IX.
The decision is the latest development in a high-stakes national debate over the rights of transgender students and a reminder that the courts are weighing in even as the Trump administration has sought through executive orders and public statements to assert that there are only two sexes and that schools should not assist students’ gender transitions.
Supreme Court appears unlikely to strike down school E-rate program
The U.S. Supreme Court on March 26 signaled it is unlikely to upend the federal E-rate program for school internet connections, even as some conservative justices showed sympathy for the legal doctrine that challengers are relying on to attack the E-rate’s funding structure as an unconstitutional tax.
“I am quite concerned about the effects of a decision in your favor on the grounds that you have been pressing,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told the lawyer arguing for striking down the funding structure of the $9 billion Universal Service Fund. It includes the $4 billion E-rate program that subsidizes telephone service, internet, and related projects in public and private schools. The USF also funds telecom services for rural hospitals, remote communities, and some low-income households.
- Read more about what was said during oral arguments for the case. 🔎
- Learn why school groups see this case as a serious threat to the E-rate program. 🔎
Federal efforts have curbed teen vaping. Will the recent cuts change that?
Federal efforts that have successfully driven down rates of youth vaping in recent years may be in peril after dramatic staffing cuts at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
HHS leadership placed Brian King, the director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products, on leave April 1 and cut dozens of employees from the center, which regulates nicotine products and enforces regulations related to warning labels and marketing restrictions.
The cuts at HHS occurred as the U.S. Supreme Court largely upheld the FDA’s denial of applications by two e-cigarette companies to sell vaping products with fruit, candy, and dessert flavors in an April 2 ruling.
Supreme Court allows Trump admin. to end teacher-prep grants
The U.S. Supreme Court on April 4 granted the Trump administration’s emergency request to immediately terminate more than 100 grants under two federal teacher-training programs.
The court ruled 5-4 to undo a temporary restraining order issued by a federal district judge in Massachusetts last month that restored funding for 104 grants under the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development programs.
The federal government “is likely to succeed” in showing that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to order the grants to continue under a challenge brought based on the Administrative Procedure Act, the majority said in an unsigned opinion in Department of Education v. California.
Supreme Court leans toward parents on opt-outs for LGBTQ+ lessons
The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority on April 22 appeared strongly inclined to support the right of religious parents to excuse their children from a Maryland school district’s use of LGBTQ+ storybooks in its elementary schools.
“The plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum. They’re just saying, ‘look, we want out,’” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told the lawyer for the Montgomery County school district during two-and-a-half hours of arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor. “What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?”
The district began using the storybooks in its English/language arts curriculum in 2022 and initially allowed religious parents to keep their children out before reversing course and ending the opt-out option. A group of Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Ethiopian Orthodox parents sued the district, arguing the reversal violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion. Two lower courts declined to grant a preliminary injunction.
Retired Justice Souter, advocate for civics and church-state split, dies at 85
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, a staunch defender of racial equity and the constitutional separation of church and state in education, died May 8 at home in New Hampshire. He was 85.
Souter was appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990 to succeed liberal stalwart Justice William J. Brennan Jr. Over the next 19 years, he became a reliably liberal vote in several areas of school law before being succeeded by Justice Sonia Sotomayor in 2009.
Supreme Court case on birthright citizenship sparks fears for school funding
The U.S. Supreme Court on May 15 heard arguments in a case involving President Donald Trump’s executive order that could revoke birthright citizenship from children of some undocumented immigrant parents, an issue being watched closely by educators and policymakers.
The unusual May argument—two weeks after the court’s regular arguments ended for the 2024-25 term—was largely focused on the legal question the administration brought to the court in an emergency application: whether federal district judges have the power to issue nationwide injunctions blocking federal policies they believe are unlawful.
Supreme Court gives relief to Maine legislator in transgender sports controversy
The U.S. Supreme Court on May 20 granted emergency relief restoring voting privileges to a Maine state legislator who was censured for her social media post critical of a transgender female student’s victory in a state high school track and field championship event.
The Feb. 17 Facebook post by state Rep. Laurel D. Libby led to other posts and media appearances in which the Republican lawmaker criticized Maine officials for allowing transgender students to participate in girls’ athletics. It also helped lead to President Donald Trump’s Feb. 21 confrontation with Maine Gov. Janet T. Mills, a Democrat, at a White House event.
The Trump administration has since ratcheted up its confrontation with Maine over the issue, with several federal agencies launching investigations into the state’s compliance with Title IX, including the U.S. Department of Education starting the process to terminate federal funds and the Department of Justice suing the state over allowing transgender participants in female sports.
Religious charter school blocked after Supreme Court deadlock
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a swift and somewhat surprising resolution of the term’s most closely watched education case, on May 22 announced a 4-4 deadlock in a case challenging Oklahoma’s unprecedented approval of a religious charter school.
“The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. announced from the bench this morning, referring to the 2024 decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that such a charter would violate the state and federal constitutions.
Because the state high court had ruled that a charter run by two Catholic dioceses in the state would violate the state and federal constitutions, the U.S. Supreme Court’s action effectively blocks Oklahoma from granting a charter to the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. The high court’s action affirms the Oklahoma high court’s decision against the charter but does not set a nationwide precedent either prohibiting or greenlighting religiously affiliated charter schools. The justices issued only a brief order and no written opinion explaining their votes, as is customary in such deadlocks.
- More legal challenges are almost certain—read about them here. 🔎
- The high court had previously appeared open to arguments that Oklahoma must allow the religious charter school. 🔎
- This case could’ve reshaped the landscape for charter and religious schools. 🔎
Supreme Court won’t hear ‘Two Genders’ student T-shirt case
Over the sharp dissent of two justices, the U.S. Supreme Court on May 27 declined to hear the case of a student who was barred by his Massachusetts middle school from wearing a T-shirt with the message, “There Are Only Two Genders.”
The court’s refusal to take up the issue offers schools no additional clarity for now on student speech that many school administrators perceive as harmful to LGBTQ+ students or other vulnerable populations.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., in a dissent from the denial of review that was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said, “This case presents an issue of great importance for our nation’s youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech either because it expresses a viewpoint that the school disfavors or because of vague concerns about the likely effect of the speech on the school atmosphere, or on students who find the speech offensive.”
Appeals court ruling raises bar for challenging school book bans
A federal appeals court ruling will make it more difficult for library patrons to challenge book removal decisions, with the decision involving a public library in Texas but likely applying to school libraries as well.
In its 10-7 decision on May 23, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in New Orleans, ruled that a library’s decision to remove books may not be challenged under the First Amendment based on library users’ right to receive information.
The decision would appear to apply equally to public libraries and school libraries in the three states in the 5th Circuit—Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.
Trump administration asks the Supreme Court to reinstate Ed. Dept. layoffs
The Trump administration on June 6 filed an emergency application asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the lawsuit challenging the layoffs of roughly 1,400 U.S. Department of Education employees.
The administration asked the high court to undo a May 22 preliminary injunction by a federal district judge in Massachusetts ordering the department to reverse the layoffs and reinstate all affected employees. The injunction came in a pair of lawsuits brought by New York and 20 other Democratic-led states, two Massachusetts school districts, and the American Federation of Teachers along with other unions.
Supreme Court decision lets students sue schools more easily for disability bias
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 12 sided with students with disabilities, overturning a lower-court ruling that had required them to meet a more stringent standard of liability when suing their schools under two key federal disability-discrimination laws.
The unanimous decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools makes it easier for students and families to seek monetary damages for alleged discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
“We hold today that ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts,” and not a “distinct, more demanding analysis,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court.
- Read more about the decision. 🔎
- Read more about what was said during oral arguments for the case. 🔎
- Read more about the Minnesota student at the center of the case, Ava Tharpe, who has a rare and severe form of epilepsy known as Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome. 🔎
Supreme Court ruling may redefine transgender rights in schools
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 18 upheld a Tennessee law banning certain gender-transition treatments for transgender minors, in a decision with potential ripple effects for other state-level restrictions on transgender rights in education, including bans on transgender girls’ participation in school sports.
Two justices, in fact, sent a signal that they believe states have wide authority to regulate sports eligibility and access to restrooms for transgender students.
The 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti upholds the 2023 Tennessee medical law under the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause, which is the same basis upon which several federal courts have blocked laws in Arizona, Idaho, and West Virginia that bar transgender girls from school and college sports.
