The debate over the role of technology in classrooms is not new, but the pace and scope of legislative action recently has accelerated. These actions appear to be driven by growing concerns over student mental health.
AI tools have become part of the daily workflow for school administrators, board members, and staff, whether they are used to draft emails, organize information, or research questions that might otherwise go to a lawyer. However, a fast-moving line of court decisions is drawing a hard line: what you type into a public AI platform may not stay private. In the education context, where legal exposure touches everything from employment decisions to student discipline and everything in between, that risk matters more than most schools realize.
On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara, 609 U.S. ___ (2026).
The case arose from Executive Order No. 14160, signed by President Trump on January 20, 2025, which declared that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully present or only temporarily present do not qualify as citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause—on the theory that such children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Several affected parents challenged the order in court, arguing it violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The District Court agreed, certified a nationwide class, and enjoined enforcement of the order, after which the Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment.
Fostering Diverse Schools Demonstration Grants
In fall 2025, the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development sent a Notice of Non-Continuation of Grant Award for the Fostering Diverse Schools Demonstration Grants (FDS) program, which launched in 2023. This amounts to over $25 million in discontinued funds for the recipients, including public school districts in Miami and New York City.
For more than three decades, the federal government maintained a policy restricting immigration enforcement operations at or near schools and other “sensitive locations.” That longstanding protection ended abruptly in January 2025, when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rescinded its sensitive locations policy and replaced it with guidance leaving enforcement decisions to the discretion of individual Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The policy shift has led to increased immigration enforcement activity at or near schools nationwide, prompting legal challenges from school districts concerned about disruptions to their educational mission.
Understanding how courts interpret school policies is essential for today’s educational leaders, especially as issues involving gender identity continue to evolve.
A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools, offers important guidance for school districts navigating the balance between protecting students and respecting the personal beliefs of staff. This blog post breaks down what the Polk decision means for your district and offers practical steps to help ensure your policies remain both legally sound and supportive of all students.
On January 22, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) voted 2-1 to rescind its “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace,” which had been approved in 2024. In a statement, EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas contended that the 2024 Guidance overstepped the agency’s authority by imposing new obligations on employers rather than simply interpreting existing law. Lucas emphasized, however, that “rescinding this guidance does not give employers license to engage in unlawful harassment,” and that the EEOC “will continue to be dedicated to preventing and remedying unlawful workplace harassment.”
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.