Compliance

The intersection of federal privacy law, parental rights, and student gender identity has become one of the most actively litigated areas of education law. For example, on January 28, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Privacy Policy Office (SPPO) found that the California Department of Education (CDE) violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)—a federal statute granting parents the right to access their children’s education records—by maintaining policies that pressure school officials to conceal students’ gender transitions from their parents.

Red treadmill at the stadium with the numbering

On June 30, 2026, the United States Supreme Court decided the consolidated cases West Virginia v. B.P.J. (No. 24-43) and Little v. Hecox (No. 24-38), upholding state laws in West Virginia and Idaho that prohibit transgender female athletes from participating in women’s and girls’ sports. In so doing, the High Court reversed decisions from both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (West Virginia) and the Ninth Circuit (Idaho). The ruling addressed two distinct legal questions—one under Title IX and the other under the Equal Protection Clause—with different vote counts on each.

Person using smartphone beside laptop with chat icon overlay, representing online messaging, mobile communication, customer support, social media interaction, app notification, and digital connection.

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.

The marble columns of the Supreme Court of the United States

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.

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.

Door with knob opening to a classroom

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.”

Legal office of lawyers, justice and law concept : Judge's gavel or hammer and base used by a judge person on a desk in a courtroom with blurred books and a bookshelf or bookcase in the background.

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.

Empty Classroom with Colorful Chairs and Desks school 1

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.

Judge gavel on a wooden desk, law books background

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.