Litigation

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.

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 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.

It has been two months since the August 1, 2024, implementation date for the 2024 Title IX regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Education (“Department”), and schools across the country still face uncertainty from the court cases challenging the regulations.

Since their publication, the new regulations have faced strong opposition by states and national

Last Updated: August 20, 2024.

On April 19, 2024, the U.S. Department of Education (“Department”) released the long-awaited Final Rule to Title IX. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a statute with corresponding regulations that protect people from being excluded, denied benefits, or subject to discrimination under any education program or activity “on the basis of sex.” These regulations apply to every school at the K-12 and postsecondary level that receives federal financial assistance.

In 2022, state and local governments banned 2,571 different books. This is more books than were subject to such bans in the previous three years combined (2,436). Most of these efforts are taken at the local level. Texas’ Restricting Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational Resources (READER) Act marked a departure from this practice and sought to ban books statewide. However, the United States Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit (the “Fifth Circuit”) recently upheld a preliminary injunction against portions of Texas’ law.

Husch Blackwell’s Joe Diedrich appeared recently on the Institute for Justice’s Short Circuit podcast to provide analysis in connection with the Seventh Circuit’s ruling in Biggs v. Chicago Board of Ed. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in the case below, a dispute between a fired elementary school’s interim principal and the Chicago Public Schools system.

Key Points

  • The ministerial exception protects religious employers from government interference in internal employment disputes involving the selection, supervision, and removal of individuals who play an important role relative to the core mission of the institution.
  • To determine whether the ministerial exception applies in a specific case, courts must assess the nature of the duties or functions performed by the employee for the religious institution.
  • Employees of religious institutions who are designated as performing functions vital to the core mission and that fall within the scope of the ministerial exception cannot pursue an employment claim.
  • The Supreme Court stated: “When a school with a religious mission entrusts a teacher with the responsibility of educating and forming students in the faith, judicial intervention into disputes between the school and the teacher threatens the school’s independence in a way that the First Amendment does not allow.”
  • This exception may apply to other lay employees of religious employers.