Are the President's Actions About Public Schools Legal?

Since Inauguration Day, the Trump administration has attacked public education and inclusive policies, often in direct conflict with existing law.

Here is a deeper look at the legality of the Trump administration’s actions.

View past legal updates:

June 18, 2026
June 5, 2026
May 8, 2026
April 24, 2026
April 10, 2026
March 13, 2026

Legal Rundown PDF archive to March 27, 2025

On June 5, a Massachusetts district judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking a Department of Agriculture (USDA) requirement that states certify that they do not operate any DEI programs or “promote gender ideology” in order to receive funding for programs like SNAP and the National School Lunch Program. States challenged the requirement under the Constitution’s Spending Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

District Judge Blocks $100K Fee for H-1B Visas

On June 8, a Massachusetts district judge granted summary judgement for a group of states that challenged Trump's Presidential Proclamation requiring a $100,000 fee for new H‑1B visa petitions. The court held that the fee violates the separation of powers and exceeds the President’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The government has appealed the decision.

Nebraska to End In-State Tuition Policy for Undocumented Students

On June 3, a Nebraska district judge approved a voluntary consent decree between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Nebraska to end the state’s law allowing certain undocumented students to pay in-state tuition at public colleges, after DOJ sued in April 2026. Nebraska is the fourth state to enter a consent decree (following Texas, Oklahoma, and Kentucky). DOJ’s lawsuit against Minnesota was dismissed in March, and challenges remain pending in California, Illinois, and Virginia.

State Coalition Challenges Anti-DEI Federal Contracting EO

On June 10, a coalition of 19 states and DC filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s March 2026 executive order that requires all federal contractors to certify that they do not engage in “racially discriminatory DEI activities.” The states argue that the order impedes their ability to combat racial discrimination and is unconstitutionally vague and seek an injunction blocking it.

AFL-CIO Sues DOL Over New Union Reporting Requirements

On June 10, the AFL-CIO filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Labor’s final rule that significantly increases financial disclosure requirements for labor unions filing LM-2 reports. AFL-CIO alleges that the rule violates the APA and has asked the court to delay its effective date of July 1, 2026, until at least July 1, 2027.

States Sue ED Over Special Education Grant Cuts

On June 9, California, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Education’s (ED) discontinuation of multi-year State Personnel Development Grants (SPDGs), which fund professional development for special educators. The states contend that the cancellations violate the APA and the Constitution.

Recent Executive Actions

Transferring ED’s Special Education and Civil Rights Responsibilities

On June 16, ED announced four new interagency agreements (IAAs). Under the first, ED’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (including the administration of nearly all IDEA grant programs) will move to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). A second IAA transfers many functions of ED’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to DOJ. DOJ will also assume responsibility for complaints involving parental rights and student privacy, and will administer the Equity Assistance Centers, mandated by statute to provide guidance to school boards and government agencies on school desegregation.

Rescinding Title VI Disparate Impact Protections at USDA

On June 17, USDA published a direct final rule rescinding its longstanding Title VI regulations prohibiting disparate impact discrimination (when a facially neutral policy or action has the effect of disproportionately harming individuals on the basis of race, color, or national origin). The rule applies to all USDA programs, including the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program. USDA is the third agency — following DOJ and the Department of Energy — to repeal its disparate impact regulations. Several other agencies (including ED) are pursuing similar final rules, with the Department of Homeland Security’s rule scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on June 22.

Waiving ESEA Funding and Accountability Requirements for Indiana

On June 16, ED approved Indiana’s request to waive certain requirements under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The waiver allows Indiana to consolidate a small portion of its state-level activities funds from five separate ESEA formula grants into a single block grant, approves a state pilot program permitting certain school districts to consolidate their funding under two ESEA programs into a block grant and authorizes Indiana to relax certain high school accountability requirements, like test scores and graduation rates, in favor of career-readiness metrics. ED has encouraged states to apply for ESEA waivers since July 2025 and approved similar waivers for Iowa and Louisiana.

On May 21, NEA and a coalition of professional associations filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Education’s (ED) Reimagining and Improving Student Education ("RISE") Rule, which narrowly defined “professional” program for the purpose of implementing new statutory caps on federal graduate student loans. The lawsuit argues that the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by illegally limiting the kinds of postgraduate degrees that count as “professional” degrees and subjecting students in a range of programs to lower loan caps. A separate lawsuit challenging the rule was also filed by a coalition of 23 states on May 19.

NEA Files Lawsuit Challenging NPD Grant Terminations

On June 3, NEA, the Lawyers' Committee for Rhode Island, and the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a lawsuit challenging ED’s unlawful termination of 28 National Professional Development (NPD) Grants meant to improve educational instruction for English learners and expand the bilingual teacher workforce. ED abruptly pulled the grants in September 2025, citing “divisive ideology.” The lawsuit argues that the terminations violated the First Amendment and the APA.

NEA Lawsuit Against Dismantling of ED Continues

On May 8, a Maryland district judge denied the government’s motion to dismiss NEA’s lawsuit challenging the dismantling of ED. The court held that the plaintiff coalition (including NEA and the NAACP) plausibly alleged that the Trump Administration’s actions to shutter ED, including a March 2025 mass reduction-in-force and the cancellation of billions in grant awards and contracts, violated the Constitution and the APA and harmed the plaintiffs’ members. The decision, which noted that no statute gives the President the power to shut down the Department, means that the case will continue.

District Judge Will Not Restore Sensitive Locations Protections

On May 6, a Minnesota district judge denied two Minnesota school districts’ request to temporarily reinstate a longstanding Department of Homeland Security policy that prohibited immigration enforcement activity in sensitive locations such as schools, hospitals, and churches. The court found that the districts likely lacked standing to challenge the Trump Administration’s 2025 guidance rescinding the sensitive locations policy. The ruling is not a final judgment in the case, which will continue. NEA's motion for similar relief in an Oregon case is still pending.

NEA Victory: Educator Matthew Hawn Wins Appeal

On May 26, the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled in favor of NEA member Matthew Hawn, a Tennessee educator who was dismissed in 2021 after playing a spoken-word poem about white privilege in his high school contemporary issues class. The Tennessee Education Association challenged the termination, with NEA supporting the case, including through an amicus brief on appeal. The court found that Hawn had not unreasonably denied students access to differing viewpoints and that termination was not warranted. We are hopeful that the appeals court ruling will bring to an end this long-running, unjustified effort to terminate a highly regarded teacher with 16 years of exemplary service.

Recent Executive Actions

Politicizing Federal Grantmaking

On May 29, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other agencies (including ED) published a proposed rule that would significantly expand executive branch discretion to award, condition, suspend, and terminate federal funding. Among other provisions, the rule would require senior political appointees to ensure all grants are consistent with Administration priorities and the “national interest,” limit the role of peer review in selecting grant recipients, and allow agencies to terminate grants found to promote “racial preferences,” “gender ideology,” “illegal immigration,” or “anti-American values” with minimal process. Public comment on the proposal is open until July13.

Withholding Nearly $300 Million in Education Research Funding

The Trump Administration is currently withholding $289 million appropriated by Congress to support federal education research and data collection, through ED’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES). If these funds are not used by September 30, 2026, they will expire and return to the Treasury.

Expanding Reporting Requirements for Unions

On June 1, the Department of Labor (DOL) published a final rule that significantly expands financial disclosure requirements for labor unions that file LM-2 reports without an opportunity for public comment. DOL previously published and collected comments on a proposed rule that would have made some of these changes to LM-2 reporting requirements in December 2020, at the tail end of the first Trump term, but the proposal was withdrawn by the Biden Administration without being finalized. Nonetheless, DOL claims that the 2020 notice-and-comment process carries over to its new final rule. The rule takes effect on July 1st and will apply to each LM-2 filing union at the start of its next fiscal year.

Increasing Restrictions for Absentee Voting

On June 2, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) published a proposed rule mandating that each state provide a list of eligible mail‑in voters for USPS to approve before delivering ballots, as directed in a March 2026 executive order (EO). Public comment on the proposed rule is open until July 2.

May 8, 2026

Litigation Updates

SCOTUS Agrees to Gut Core Provision of Voting Rights Act

On April 29, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) issued a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais that effectively neutered Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which bars racial discrimination in voting. The case — reargued this term after SCOTUS first heard it last year — raised the question of what plaintiffs must show to establish that a redistricted map was drawn based on impermissible considerations of race. Despite the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act directing courts to focus on the effects of redistricting, SCOTUS instead insisted that proof of intent is necessary to strike down maps under Section 2. It further concluded that such intent can only be found when race is the sole explanation for the district lines. Consequently, the Court struck down a Louisiana map that had been drawn to remedy the effective disenfranchisement of Black voters, deeming it an impermissible racial gerrymander. The majority suggested that if a redistricting plan could be explained as a partisan gerrymander, it would largely be insulated from being challenged as a racial gerrymander. In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that this ruling leaves Section 2 “all but a dead letter.” The Court issued an unsigned, one-paragraph order on May 4 putting its decision into immediate effect, prompting swift efforts in Louisiana and other states to implement new maps ahead of the 2026 elections.

DOJ Sues NJ Over In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students

On April 30, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued New Jersey over its law allowing undocumented college students to pay in-state tuition, which DOJ claims violates federal law by giving in-state undocumented students access to benefits not available to out-of-state U.S. citizens. DOJ has challenged similar policies in eight other states. Its case against Minnesota was dismissed in March and is on appeal. Litigation is ongoing in California, Illinois, and Virginia, while Texas, Oklahoma, and Kentucky entered consent decrees ending their policies. Nebraska’s proposed consent decree is pending court approval.

District Judge Expands Block on ED’s Demand for Admissions Data

On April 27, a Massachusetts district judge expanded a preliminarily injunction blocking ED from enforcing a requirement that higher education institutions submit admissions data by race and sex. The order, which previously applied to public colleges in 17 plaintiff states, now also covers six private colleges and members of six higher education associations (about 170 additional public institutions). The judge held that the data reporting requirement likely violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) due to its “rushed and chaotic” rollout, accelerated implementation timeline, and ED’s failure to meaningfully address concerns raised in public comments.

Recent Executive Actions

Withholding $2 Billion in Education Grants

As of May 6, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is withholding over $2 billion appropriated in the FY 2026 appropriations act for 35 education programs that the Trump Administration had unsuccessfully proposed that Congress defund. The withheld funds includes $235 million for education research, $220 million for teacher preparation and training, $150 million for community schools initiatives, and $139 million for magnet schools.

Proposing DEI Reporting Requirements for Federal Contractors

On May 6, multiple agencies, including the General Services Administration, published a proposed information collection to implement President Trump’s March 2026 executive order (EO) requiring all federal contractors (including higher education institutions) to agree to not engage in “racially discriminatory DEI activities.” The proposal would necessitate that contractors provide information about their own compliance with the EO’s anti-DEI requirements and report potential violations by their subcontractors. Contractors found to be in violation of the EO would risk cancellation of their contracts.

Finalizing New Federal Student Loan Caps

On May 1, the Department of Education (ED) published its final Reimagining and Improving Student Education ("RISE") Rule, which ends the Grad PLUS loan program and implements the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s limits on the federal student loan aid available to graduate students. Starting in July 2026, new borrowers can take out only $20,500 per year in federal student loans for most graduate programs, but may borrow up to $50,000 per year for certain, very limited “professional degree” programs. The final rule classifies teaching, nursing, and social work degree programs, among others, as “graduate” programs subject to the lower cap. ED received 81,000 comments on its proposed version of this rule, including many raising concerns about the "professional degree” definition.

April 24, 2026

Litigation Updates

SCOTUS to Weigh Religious Exemptions to Preschool Nondiscrimination

On April 20, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear St. Mary Parish v. Roy next term, which asks whether private religious schools that receive public funds from Colorado’s universal preschool program are entitled to exemptions from the program’s nondiscrimination requirements. To receive funding, schools must provide children with an equal opportunity to enroll, regardless of race, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other factors. The plaintiffs claim that Colorado’s refusal to exempt Catholic preschools from the nondiscrimination provision — so that they are free to reject LGBTQ+ children and families — violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Both the District Court and the Tenth Circuit ruled in favor of Colorado because the nondiscrimination provisions were neutral and generally applicable and therefore permissible under long established Supreme Court precedent.

Appeals Court Upholds Texas Ten Commandments Law

On April 21, the Fifth Circuit issued a 9-8 en banc decision upholding a Texas law that requires public schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton, concluding the law does not violate the Establishment Clause because a poster displaying the Commandments would not have offended the founders’ understanding of the prohibited establishment of religion, nor is it coercive or oppressive in violation of the Free Exercise Clause (even if it inspires disagreement). The plaintiffs, who are a multifaith group of Texas families, anticipate seeking review in the Supreme Court. NEA and the Arkansas Education Association filed an amicus brief in the Eighth Circuit in a similar case challenging Arkansas’ Ten Commandments law.

Higher Education Associations Challenge Anti-DEI Federal Contracting EO

On April 20, a coalition of higher education groups and minority contractor associations filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s March 2026 executive order (EO) that requires all federal contractors to agree to not engage in “racially discriminatory DEI activities,” or else risk the cancellation of their contracts. The EO also directs the amendment of the Federal Acquisition Regulations to require these conditions in all federal procurements, solicitations, and contracts. The plaintiffs argue that the EO violates their First Amendment rights and exceeds the President’s authority.

DOJ Sues Nebraska Over In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students

On April 21, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Nebraska over its law allowing undocumented college students to pay in-state tuition rates and benefit from scholarships, claiming that it is preempted by federal immigration laws. The same day, DOJ and Nebraska officials filed a proposed joint consent decree, asking the court to permanently enjoin the law. The court has not yet ruled. Texas, Oklahoma, and Kentucky have already agreed to end their similar policies through separate consent decrees, while DOJ’s lawsuit against Minnesota was dismissed in March. Challenges are still pending in California, Illinois, and Virginia.

District Court Vacates Magnet School Grant Discontinuation

On April 8, a New York district judge ruled that ED unlawfully discontinued five Magnet School Assistance Program grants for New York City Public Schools over their trans-inclusive policies. The court found that ED failed to follow required Title IX procedures when it ended the grants (including findings and an opportunity for voluntary compliance) and ordered the funding restored within 10 days of the order.

Recent Executive Actions

Closing ED Office for English Language Acquisition

On February 13, in a letter only made public this week, the Department of Education (ED) notified Congress of plans to formally dissolve its Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA), after dismissing nearly all its staff in 2025. OELA administers $890 million in Title III grants for English language learners and $60 million in teacher professional development grants, both of which will move to other ED offices. Although the letter says that OELA’s Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program will also be transferred internally, ED previously entered into an interagency agreement shifting program administration to the Department of the Interior. The letter provides Congress with 90 days’ notice, which means that ED can initiate these actions starting May 14.

Claiming School “Forced Outing” Prevention Policies Violate FERPA

On April 17, ED found four Kansas school districts violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) by having policies that protect against the unwanted disclosure of a student’s gender identity or sexual orientation to parents (known as “forced outing”). ED uses its March 2025 Dear Colleague Letter as a basis for claiming that such student privacy policies may violate parents’ rights under FERPA to access their students’ education records. ED is demanding that districts make documents related to "gender transition" readily accessible to parents and rescind any trans-inclusive policies, or else risk losing federal funding.

Proposing New College Accountability Metrics

On April 17, ED proposed a new accountability rule requiring programs at over 4,000 higher education institutions to show that graduates earn more than comparable degree holders (high school for undergraduate programs, bachelor’s for graduate programs). Programs that fail twice within three years could lose access to federal loans and, in some cases, Pell Grants. This could reduce financial aid access for educator preparation programs, where earnings are typically lower. Public comment is open until May 20, and the rule is slated to take effect on July 1.

April 10, 2026

Litigation Updates

SCOTUS Invalidates Colorado Ban on Conversion Talk Therapy for Minors

On April 2, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 decision in Chiles v. Salazar that invalidated a Colorado law barring “conversion therapy” — a practice meant to alter a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation — through “talk therapy.” The Court held that this application of the law violated the First Amendment by discriminating on the basis of viewpoint, prohibiting therapists’ speech that endeavors to change their client’s identity while permitting speech that affirms a client’s identity. Although the decision will impact state laws that prohibit conversion therapy, it addresses only talk therapy, not medical interventions. Further, the decision’s reasoning would also invalidate a state law that prohibits LGBTQ-affirming talk therapy and thus may protect LGBTQIA+ youth in hostile states.

SCOTUS Hears Birthright Citizenship Case

On April 1, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, one of several cases challenging President Trump’s executive order (EO) purporting to eliminate birthright citizenship. The case reached the Supreme Court after a New Hampshire district court (like every other court to consider the EO) blocked the Administration from enforcing the order last July. After the argument, the Court is widely expected to invalidate the EO. NEA joined an amicus brief along with 18 other labor organizations in support of birthright citizenship.

District Judge Dismisses DOJ Challenge to MN In-State Tuition Policy

On March 27, a Minnesota district judge dismissed a Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuit that challenged the state’s policy allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. This is the first ruling against DOJ’s campaign to end in-state tuition for undocumented students, with lawsuits still pending in California, Illinois, and Virginia. Texas, Oklahoma, and Kentucky agreed in consent judgments to end their policies.

District Judge Blocks ED’s Demand for Admissions Data

On April 3, a Massachusetts district judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of a new Department of Education (ED) requirement that colleges and universities collect and submit admissions data by race and sex. The requirement is purportedly to ensure compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard College. The judge found that, while ED has “the basic authority” to collect and analyze admissions data, the new requirement violated the APA because of its “rushed and chaotic” adoption, its accelerated implementation timeline, and ED’s failure to meaningfully address concerns raised in public comments. The injunction applies only to the public university systems in the 17 plaintiff states, not to public universities in the non-plaintiff states or to private colleges and universities.

State Coalition Sues USDA Over Funding Threats to School Meal Programs

On March 23, 21 states sued the Department of Agriculture (USDA), challenging new grant conditions that require recipients to certify that they will not use federal funds to “promote gender ideology” or provide “taxpayer-funded benefits” to undocumented individuals. Among other critical funding, the plaintiff states collectively risk losing at least $11.6 billion in funds to feed children through the Child Nutrition Program, which includes the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs.

Recent Executive Actions

Prohibiting Federal Contractors from DEI Practices

On March 26, President Trump issued an executive order (EO) requiring all federal contractors, including higher education institutions, to agree to “not engage in any racially discriminatory DEI activities” or else risk the cancellation of their contracts. Contractors must provide records to demonstrate compliance and report violations by subcontractors. The EO suggests that violations of these requirements would expose contractors to liability under the False Claims Act. Federal agencies must add this language to their contracts by April 25 and audit contractors’ compliance by July 24.

Increasing Restrictions on Absentee Voting

On March 31, President Trump issued an EO directing the Department of Homeland Security to provide state election officials with lists of eligible voters. Election officials who provide ballots to individuals not on those lists would be subject to prosecution. The order also requires the U.S. Postal Service to promulgate regulations mandating the creation of pre‑approved lists of eligible mail‑in voters and prohibits USPS from delivering mail‑in or absentee ballots to voters not on those lists.

Rescinding Resolution Agreements that Support Trans Students

On April 6, in an unprecedented move, ED announced that its Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is rescinding portions of six agreements with school districts and colleges to resolve complaints of gender-based discrimination against transgender students, in violation of Title IX.

Proposing Federal Education FY 2027 Budget Cuts

On April 3, the Trump Administration released a “skinny budget” proposal for the 2027 fiscal year that would reduce education funding by a net $2.3 billion, or a 3% cut. This includes $8.5 billion in cuts to around 30 K-12 programs, including 17 ESEA programs and most IDEA programs other than Part B formula grants to states, which would be consolidated into two block grant programs. The proposal also requests that Congress appropriate funding for federal career and technical education programs — which are required by statute to be run through ED — to the Department of Labor (DOL), formalizing the Administration's transfer of these programs from ED to DOL through a May 2025 interagency agreement.

Transferring Student Loan Programs to the Treasury Department

On March 19, ED announced a new interagency agreement (IAA) to transfer the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), which administers the $1.7 trillion federal student loan portfolio, to the Department of Treasury (Treasury). In the first phase of the IAA, Treasury will take over debt collection on defaulted student loans, and in subsequent phases, will “assume operational responsibility” over non-defaulted loans as well as FSA’s administrative and oversight functions for federal student aid programs.

March 13, 2026

Federal Litigation Updates

NEA Joins Suit Challenging Community Schools Grant Cancellations

On February 27, NEA joined a lawsuit brought by a coalition of unions, school districts, and nonprofit groups challenging the Department of Education’s (ED) discontinuation of $132 million in Full Service Community Schools grants, which support district programs to provide academic, social, and health services for students, families, and communities at high-poverty schools. The lawsuit claims that ED did not follow the legally required process to cancel the grants and that the discontinuations violated the First Amendment by targeting grants that allegedly promoted disfavored DEI activities.

SCOTUS Halts California Limits on Student LGBTQ+ Disclosure to Parents

On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned shadow-docket order in Mirabelli v. Bonta, blocking California’s policies that prohibited schools from disclosing students’ LGBTQ+ identities to their parents without the student’s consent. The Court found that these policies likely violate parents’ First Amendment right to control their children’s religious upbringing and due process right to be involved in decisions regarding their children’s gender identities. The ruling expands on last Term’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which recognized a First Amendment right for parents to opt their children out of lessons and curricular materials, including LGBTQ+ characters and topics on religious grounds.

Appeals Court Denies ED Stay in School-Based Mental Health Grant Case

On February 26, the Ninth Circuit denied ED's motion to stay a district court order in a case brought by 15 state Attorneys General, which requires the Department to reconsider its termination of 138 School-Based Mental Health grants in the plaintiff states. The order followed the district court’s final decision that the discontinuations were unlawful. The Ninth Circuit held that ED was not likely to show that the district court erred in finding the cancellations illegal and therefore must comply with its order.

Appeals Court Clears Path for Trump Anti-Union Executive Order

On February 26th, the Ninth Circuit vacated a district court’s preliminary injunction blocking a March 2025 executive order (EO) that stripped collective bargaining rights from employees of certain federal agencies on national security grounds. The court found that the union plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their claim that the EO unconstitutionally retaliated against them for suing the Trump Administration. NEA has also filed a lawsuit challenging the EO and won a preliminary injunction restoring the bargaining rights of educators in DoDEA schools. The government’s appeal of that preliminary injunction is pending.

District Court Allows Challenge to Dismantling of IES to Proceed

On February 25, the District of Columbia district court denied the Trump Administration’s motion to dismiss two lawsuits challenging the dismantling of ED’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), allowing the case to move forward. The court held that the plaintiffs — organizations of education researchers and policy advocates — had plausibly alleged concrete harms and that dismantling the IES programs was unlawful.

State Litigation Updates

Kentucky Supreme Court Finds Charter School Law Unconstitutional

On February 19, Kentucky’s Supreme Court struck down the state’s charter school law, finding that the law unconstitutionally directed public funds to charter schools that do not qualify as “common schools” as defined in the state constitution. Voters had previously rejected a state constitutional amendment that would have allowed public funds to be used for charter and private schools.

WEAC Sues Wisconsin Legislature Over School Funding Formula

On February 23, the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), along with a coalition of unions, parents, districts, and advocates, filed a lawsuit alleging that the Wisconsin State Legislature has chronically underfunded the state’s public schools and thus violated its constitutional duty to provide all students with a “sound basic education.” The legislature repealed a mechanism to increase public-school funding to account for inflation in 2009, and since then, has passed laws prioritizing funding for private school vouchers and independent charter schools. The plaintiffs argue that this underfunding has forced districts to lay off educators, increase class sizes, and cut required programs and thus has caused a decline in student achievement.

Appeals Court Affirms Free Speech Rights of California Elementary Student

On March 10, the Ninth Circuit joined four other courts of appeals in affirming that elementary school students have First Amendment free speech rights at school. The unanimous opinion emphasized that, under the First Amendment, school officials must demonstrate that any interference with protected student speech was reasonably necessary to prevent disruption or protect student well-being, taking into account the age of elementary students. The case was brought on behalf of a California first-grader who was suspended from recess for sharing an allegedly offensive drawing with a classmate and reached the Ninth Circuit after a district court found that the drawing was not protected speech. The panel remanded for the district court to determine whether the first-grader’s suspension was reasonably necessary or unconstitutional.