Supreme Court

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.

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.

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.

image of a half-open door to school class

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.

Columns_000017257808

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.

On October 31, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS” or “the Court”) heard oral arguments in two cases challenging the race-conscious student admissions policies used by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (“UNC”) to promote diverse school enrollments. The final decision in this case likely will be released at the end of the current term—in late June or early July 2023. It could have important implications not only for colleges and universities but also for public school districts.

On April 28th, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., a student free speech case that every public school district in the country needs to be watching.

Background

This situation arose with a Snapchat message posted while off campus by a then 14-year old girl on a Saturday following the announcement of the results of cheerleading tryouts.  That girl (“B.L.”) had been placed on the junior varsity team for her sophomore year of high school, despite an incoming freshman making the varsity squad. Her anger over that decision resulted in a few Snapchat messages, among the messages was a picture of her and a classmate raising their middle fingers with the caption (uncensored in the original message): “F*** school f*** softball f*** cheer f*** everything.” Although Snapchat messages are designed to disappear within 24 hours, one of the recipients took a screenshot of the message, and it made its way to B.L.’s coaches.  B.L. was then suspended from the junior varsity team for one year, and she decided to sue. B.L. claims that the suspension violated her constitutional right to free speech.