On June 30, the United States Supreme Court concluded a highly consequential term, issuing several decisions that will have a major impact on public education. We have covered several of these key decisions on the Legal Ledger in recent weeks, including blog posts covering Mahmoud v. Taylor, Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, and Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond. In addition to these decisions, the Court issued several other notable decisions that are relevant to our members.
Nationwide injunctions
The court issued an important decision curbing the ability of federal district courts to issue nationwide injunctions in a case concerning birthright citizenship, Trump v. CASA, Inc. In that case, three federal district courts issued nationwide injunctions, blocking action by the federal government against all parties nationwide. The federal government argued that these injunctions exceeded the courts’ authority, and the United States Supreme Court agreed. Reviewing the Judiciary Act of 1789 in which Congress outlined federal courts’ authority, the 6-3 majority found that the Act likely did not empower courts to issue nationwide, universally applicable injunctions. Rather, courts are limited to issuing remedies that provide relief to the actual parties in the case.
This is an important decision for public education because in recent years, under multiple administrations, courts across the nation have issued nationwide injunctions in ways that have caused significant changes in legal standards and practices for school districts that were not parties to the litigation. In the wake of this decision, the use of these injunctions will be curtailed.
Special education and disability discrimination
In A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279, the court unanimously held that students with disabilities should not be subject to a heightened standard when alleging discrimination by a public school district and seeking money damages. Previously, students suing a school district for discrimination on the basis of the adequacy of services needed to demonstrate “bad faith or gross misjudgment” on the part of school officials in order to establish liability for a claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act.
This decision means that districts may be more likely to face litigation for disputes over services that were previously in the exclusive domain of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and its dispute resolution procedures and may be liable for money damages for those claims.
E-Rate
In a 6-3 decision in FCC v. Consumers’ Research, the court upheld the constitutionality of the federal E-Rate program, which provides billions of dollars to public schools and libraries nationwide. The program was challenged as an unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority to a federal agency. The court found that because Congress provided an “intelligible principle” which sufficiently constrained the Federal Communication Commission’s authority in administering the program, it passed muster under the Constitution and was upheld.
Transgender youth in sports
After the formal end of the term on July 3, the Court agreed to hear two cases on the question of whether states can ban the participation of transgender girls in girls’ and women’s sports. Lower courts have split on the question of whether such bans constitute unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex under federal law. The Court is expected to hear the case and render a decision in its next term, which will begin in October and last through next summer.
Readers are encouraged to read the decisions discussed in this blog post in full and consult with board counsel to ensure compliance with any new requirements in the law. OSBA members with general questions about these or any other decisions from this term are welcome to contact OSBA’s legal division at 855-OSBA-LAW.