On April 23, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order #14280 (EO 14280), “Reinstating Commonsense School Discipline Policies.” This order directs the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Attorney General to issue new guidance on school discipline and move away from the disparate impact framework that the Obama and Biden administrations had applied.
The enactment of Section 25F of the Internal Revenue Code—part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21)—is one of the most significant developments in education-related tax policy in a generation. Building on decades of state-level tax credit scholarship programs, Congress has established a federal framework that channels private philanthropic capital into K-12 scholarships through a new qualifying vehicle: the Scholarship Granting Organization (“SGO”). For schools, charities, and foundations invested in educational access, the moment calls for informed strategic planning.
Since early 2025, the U.S. Department of Education (“Department”), under Secretary Linda McMahon, has implemented several significant policy changes affecting K-12 education. For example, the Department has taken steps to expand support for private, religious, and charter schools, while also shifting its approach to civil rights enforcement and federal funding guidance.
In recent years, a handful of high-profile legal challenges have emerged in response to state laws requiring the display of religious texts in public school classrooms, particularly in conservative states. Both Texas and Louisiana have enacted legislation mandating that public schools prominently display the Ten Commandments, prompting lawsuits from parents and advocacy groups who argue that such measures violate the First Amendment. While courts have expressed skepticism toward state-sponsored religious displays in schools, ongoing litigation means the future of these laws—and the separation of church and state in public education—remains uncertain.
Numerous school districts across the United States still operate under desegregation orders originally implemented in the decades following the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which held that racially segregated school districts were unconstitutional. 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Achieving unitary status marks the point at which a formerly racially segregated school system is deemed to have dismantled de jure segregation and, therefore, may be released from federal court supervision.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has ceased investigating claims based solely on alleged disparate impact discrimination. Traditionally, disparate impact discrimination claims could be proven when a seemingly neutral employment policy or practice disproportionately affected members of a protected class—such as race, gender, or age—even if there was no evidence of an intent to discriminate.
On January 7, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education (the “Department”) approved Iowa’s “Returning Education to the States Waiver,” making Iowa the first state to receive such approval. This waiver frees Iowa from several requirements related to the Every Student Succeeds Act (“ESSA”) and thereby give it greater flexibility in how it uses certain federal education funds.
The legal landscape for transgender rights in the United States continues to evolve rapidly, with the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Court”) and federal courts issuing pivotal decisions. The past year has seen high-profile cases on access to gender-affirming care, participation in school sports, restroom policies, and the intersection of First Amendment rights with issues of gender identity. These cases have resulted in a patchwork of rulings and left many legal questions unresolved, with significant implications for students, educators, and families nationwide.
The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari on January 17, 2025, in A.J.T. by and through A.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 279, 96 F.4th 1058 (8th Cir. 2024), cert. granted sub nom. A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, No. 24-249, 2025 WL 226839 (U.S. Jan. 17, 2025). At issue is whether students with disabilities are required to satisfy a “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief against school districts they allege have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
The legal saga surrounding the 2024 Title IX Regulations reached a new peak earlier this month. On January 9, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in Tennessee v. Cardona, one of the cases challenging the 2024 Title IX Regulations. In doing so, the court vacated the 2024 Title IX regulations nationwide.