Education lawsuits filed and decided between 2024 and 2026 have reshaped nearly every part of American schooling. Federal and state courts have struck down a Biden-era Title IX rewrite, blocked and killed the SAVE student loan repayment plan, invalidated federal anti-DEI directives, vacated a $2.2 billion funding freeze against Harvard, ended race-conscious admissions at military academies by settlement, and taken up whether states can bar transgender girls from girls’ sports. Other fights, over school vouchers, book removals, in-state tuition for undocumented students, early-decision admissions, and the very existence of the U.S. Department of Education, are still moving through the courts.
Title IX Rewrite Struck Down
In April 2024, the Biden administration finalized a Title IX overhaul that redefined “sex discrimination” to include gender identity, sexual orientation, and sex stereotypes, revised the definition of hostile-environment harassment, and addressed access to sex-separated spaces for transgender students. It was challenged almost immediately.
Six states — Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia — sued in the Eastern District of Kentucky. Chief Judge Danny C. Reeves granted a preliminary injunction in June 2024, and parallel suits produced similar injunctions in other circuits. By the end of that summer the rule was blocked in roughly half the country.1Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. State of Tennessee v. Cardona
The federal government asked the Supreme Court for an emergency partial stay, arguing the injunctions should have been narrowed to the challenged provisions. On August 16, 2024, the Court denied the request in a per curiam opinion, finding the government had not shown the contested provisions could be cleanly separated from the rest of the rule. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson, dissented in part, calling the blanket injunctions overbroad.2Cornell Law Institute. Department of Education v. Louisiana3Justia. Department of Education v. Louisiana
On January 9, 2025, Judge Reeves granted summary judgment to the plaintiff states and vacated the rule entirely. He wrote that “when Title IX is viewed in its entirety, it is abundantly clear that discrimination on the basis of sex means discrimination on the basis of being a male or female,” and found the pronoun requirements amounted to unconstitutional compelled speech.4FindLaw. Tennessee v. Cardona With the incoming administration set to take office days later, no appeal followed. The Department of Education formally returned to the 2020 Title IX rule on January 31, 2025, and said it would no longer interpret Title IX to cover gender identity or sexual orientation.5HR Law Watch. Department of Education Confirms Return to Trump Administration’s 2020 Title IX Rule
Transgender Athletes at the Supreme Court
Whether states can bar transgender girls from girls’ sports teams reached the Supreme Court through two cases argued together on January 13, 2026. In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the Fourth Circuit had struck down West Virginia’s law requiring athletes to compete based on their sex assigned at birth. In Little v. Hecox, the Ninth Circuit reached a similar conclusion about Idaho’s 2020 Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, the first state law of its kind.6National Constitution Center. Unpacking the Transgender Athletes Case at the Supreme Court
At argument, the justices focused on whether the 1974 Javits Amendment, which allows schools to make “reasonable provisions” for sex-separated sports, permits categorical bans based on biological sex. The Trump administration filed an amicus brief supporting the states. Court observers reported that a majority appeared inclined to uphold the bans.7American Bar Association. Little v. Hecox8SCOTUSblog. West Virginia v. B.P.J. Decisions are expected by late June 2026.
School Voucher Programs Under Constitutional Attack
Ohio EdChoice
More than 300 Ohio public school districts, operating as “Vouchers Hurt Ohio,” sued the state’s universal voucher program in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in January 2022, arguing it violates the Ohio Constitution’s mandate for a “thorough and efficient system of common schools.”9Ohio Capital Journal. Public School Advocates Claim Victory as Ohio Judge Calls Private Voucher Program Unconstitutional
In June 2025, Judge Jaiza Page granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and declared EdChoice unconstitutional. She wrote that calling the program a “scholarship” was “mere semantics” because the state pays private schools directly, and noted participating private schools receive substantially more state funding per student than public schools do. She also found the program violated constitutional prohibitions on religious sects controlling state school funds.10Ohio School Boards Association. Judge Rules EdChoice Scholarship Program Unconstitutional Judge Page stayed her ruling to let the program continue on appeal. The Tenth District Court of Appeals heard the case on May 12, 2026.11Statenews.org. Lawsuit Over Ohio’s EdChoice Voucher Program Goes to Appeals Court
Tennessee Universal Vouchers
Governor Bill Lee signed the Tennessee Education Freedom Scholarship Act in February 2025. The program provides roughly $7,300 per student for private school tuition, with 20,000 spots in its first year at a cost of $144 million. On November 20, 2025, parents and taxpayers represented by the ACLU of Tennessee, the Education Law Center, and the Southern Poverty Law Center sued in Davidson County Chancery Court. They argue the program violates the state constitution’s education clause by diverting funds to private schools that lack comparable academic standards, teacher certification requirements, and civil rights protections.12Tennessee Lookout. Tennesseans Challenge State’s Private School Voucher Program13ACLU of Tennessee. Young v. Lee
Pennsylvania School Funding Remedy
Pennsylvania’s landmark funding case moved from courtroom victory to implementation. In February 2023, the Commonwealth Court declared the state’s funding system unconstitutional in a 786-page decision. Legislative leaders chose not to appeal, and a subsequent analysis put the shortfall at $6.2 billion.14Public Interest Law Center. School Funding Lawsuit
The Shapiro administration and a bipartisan commission initially proposed a seven-year plan to add $5.4 billion for struggling districts. Senate Republicans pushed the timeline to nine years, meaning children now in kindergarten will reach ninth grade before schools are fully funded. The 2025–26 state budget included a $5 million one-time payment to William Penn School District, one of the original plaintiffs, though advocacy groups have questioned whether the pace is adequate.15Pennsylvania Capital-Star. State Budget Sent $5 Million to a Struggling School District Represented by the State House Speaker
Student Loan Forgiveness Blocked and Ended
The Biden administration’s SAVE Plan, which offered lower monthly payments and faster loan forgiveness for millions of borrowers, was challenged by Kansas and Missouri. On June 24, 2024, judges in both states blocked portions of the plan. The Eighth Circuit later enjoined the entire plan, and the Supreme Court denied the administration’s emergency request to let it take effect.16Federalist Society. The Student Loan Forgiveness Saga
Two other forgiveness efforts died alongside SAVE. A judge in the Eastern District of Missouri enjoined a “Phase Three” waiver-based forgiveness plan in October 2024, and a planned “Phase Four” hardship-based rule never took effect after the election.
The Trump administration did not defend SAVE. It settled with Missouri, and in March 2026 the Eighth Circuit directed the lower court to enter a final judgment ending the plan. The Department of Education instructed loan servicers to restart interest accrual on affected loans as of August 2025, affecting roughly 7.7 million borrowers who had been in forbearance.17Federal Student Aid. IDR Court Actions18U.S. Department of Education. U.S. Department of Education Continues to Improve Federal Student Loan Repayment Options
Federal Anti-DEI Directives Invalidated
Early in 2025 the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a “Dear Colleague” letter warning that many DEI programs in schools and universities were unlawful and threatening to cut federal funding for institutions that kept them. Litigation followed quickly.
The National Education Association, joined by New Hampshire school districts and the Center for Black Educator Development, sued in federal court in New Hampshire. Judge Landya McCafferty found the directive likely “vague, viewpoint discriminatory, and unlawfully imposed new legal obligations.” By February 2026 the Department conceded, and the court permanently invalidated the directive.19ACLU. Department of Education Backs Down on Unlawful Directive Targeting Educational Equity In a separate case brought by the American Federation of Teachers in Maryland, a federal judge vacated the letter and an accompanying certification requirement, and the administration dropped its appeal in January 2026.20Governing. A Reprieve for DEI
The administration also required states to certify they did not use “illegal DEI practices” as a condition of receiving federal funds. Twenty-five states refused to sign, and 19 Democratic attorneys general filed a joint lawsuit in April 2025. Three federal judges paused the certification requirement that same month.21Education Week. See Which States Are Telling Trump Their Schools Don’t Use Illegal DEI The broader conflict continues: in May 2026, higher-education groups filed a new suit against an executive order requiring DEI-related certifications for federal contracts.22Association of Governing Boards. Judicial Outcomes
Harvard’s $2.2 Billion Funding Freeze Vacated
After Harvard declined to meet a series of government demands tied to allegations of antisemitism, federal agencies froze and then terminated more than $2.2 billion in grants. Harvard and the AAUP’s Harvard chapter sued in the District of Massachusetts.
On September 3, 2025, Judge Allison Burroughs granted summary judgment for Harvard, ruling the freeze violated the First Amendment by retaliating against the university for “unfavored speech” and that the government’s stated antisemitism rationale was “wholly lacking” and “untethered” from its actual motivations. She also found the termination arbitrary and capricious and procedurally deficient under Title VI.23Higher Ed Dive. Judge Strikes Down Trump Administration Harvard $2B Funding Freeze On October 20, 2025, she entered a permanent injunction vacating the freeze orders and barring the government from withholding Harvard’s funding without following Title VI’s procedural requirements.24Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. President and Fellows of Harvard College v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Dismantling the Department of Education
President Trump signed an executive order in early 2025 directing the closure of the Department of Education. The administration then pursued mass layoffs aimed at cutting the workforce nearly in half, from roughly 4,133 to 2,183 employees, and signed agreements to transfer core functions, including the $18.4 billion Title I program, to other agencies such as the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services.25Education Week. 20 States Push Back as Ed. Dept. Hands Programs to Other Agencies
Twenty states and the District of Columbia sued in March 2025, arguing the restructuring violated the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act because federal law requires the Department of Education to manage its own programs. In May 2025, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued a preliminary injunction ordering the rehiring of terminated employees and blocking the transfers, finding the department had become “a shell of itself.”26K-12 Dive. Supreme Court Allows Education Department Layoffs to Proceed
The First Circuit declined to stay the injunction. On July 14, 2025, the Supreme Court intervened and allowed the layoffs to proceed while the case continues. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, calling the majority’s decision “indefensible” and writing: “When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it.”27Supreme Court of the United States. McMahon v. New York The underlying case remains active in district court.
Book Removal Cases in Florida
In PEN American Center v. Escambia County School Board, parents, authors, publishers, and PEN America challenged the removal or restriction of more than 160 books from the Escambia County school system. In January 2024, Judge T. Kent Wetherell rejected the school board’s motion to dismiss the First Amendment claims, holding that school boards cannot remove books from libraries “solely because they disagree with the views expressed in the books.”28WUSF. Florida School Board Privilege Appeal Rejected in Long-Running Legal Battle Over Removing Books
The case stalled when the board claimed its members could not be deposed due to legislative privilege. Judge Wetherell rejected that argument, ruling the removals were administrative rather than legislative acts. In July 2025 the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the board’s appeal for lack of standing, and the district court case was set to resume.29Justia. PEN American Center v. Escambia County School Board
A separate case, Tray v. Florida State Board of Education, challenges H.B. 1069 on the theory that it creates viewpoint discrimination by giving parents who favor removals a formal appeals process while denying equivalent recourse to parents who oppose them. The district court dismissed the case in January 2025, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.30Democracy Forward. Opening Brief Filed in Appeal of Florida’s Discriminatory Book Ban Law
Military Academy Admissions After SFFA
The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard struck down race-conscious admissions at civilian universities but included a footnote exempting military academies due to “potentially distinct interests.” SFFA sued the Naval Academy, West Point, and the Air Force Academy to close that gap.
The Naval Academy won on December 6, 2024, when a federal judge in Maryland ruled its admissions program survived strict scrutiny because the academy had shown a compelling national security interest in a diverse officer corps, used holistic review, and employed no quotas.31Clark Hill. Federal Court Declines to Extend SFFA Decision Into Military Academy Admissions SFFA appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
The issue was resolved another way. In August 2025, the Department of Defense settled with SFFA and agreed that race and ethnicity would no longer be considered in admissions at any military academy. The department stated that consideration of race “does not promote military cohesiveness, lethality, recruitment, retention, or legitimacy,” reversing the position that had won in court months earlier.32Inside Higher Ed. Anti-Affirmative Action Group Settles Military Academies
Campus Protest, Speech, and Deportation
The administration’s policy of detaining and deporting noncitizen students and faculty for pro-Palestinian advocacy produced a significant ruling in AAUP v. Rubio. The American Association of University Professors, the Middle East Studies Association, and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia sued after several Columbia University affiliates were detained following campus protests. On September 30, 2025, Judge William G. Young of the District of Massachusetts ruled the policy unconstitutional, writing: “‘No law’ means ‘no law.’ The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction.”33AAUP. Court Rules in AAUP v. Rubio: Trump Admin Violated First Amendment
A follow-up order in January 2026 revealed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had personally approved deportation orders against five students, including Mahmoud Khalil, a leader of the spring 2024 Columbia encampment. The court established a presumption that any adverse change to a plaintiff class member’s immigration status was retaliatory unless the government could prove otherwise by clear and convincing evidence.34Rutgers AAUP. A Victory in Our Legal Fight to Protect International Scholars The administration said it would appeal.
DOJ Suits Against In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students
Starting in late 2025, the Department of Justice began filing suits against states offering in-state tuition or financial aid to undocumented students, arguing the policies violate federal law, discriminate against U.S. citizens from other states, and incentivize illegal immigration. As of mid-2026, cases have been filed against Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Virginia, California, Illinois, Minnesota, and Nebraska.35U.S. Department of Justice. Department of Justice Reaches Proposed Consent Decree With Nebraska36U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Files Complaint Challenging Virginia Laws
Results have varied. The DOJ obtained consent decrees or favorable orders in Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Nebraska, sometimes with cooperation from the states themselves. In Virginia, the commonwealth joined the DOJ in seeking a consent judgment in December 2025, prompting the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund to intervene on behalf of affected students.37MALDEF. MALDEF Seeks to Intervene to Defend Virginia Tuition Policy A federal judge dismissed the suit against Minnesota in April 2026, and several other cases remain contested.22Association of Governing Boards. Judicial Outcomes
Antitrust Class Action Over Early-Decision Admissions
In August 2025, current and former students filed a class action in the District of Massachusetts alleging that 32 elite universities conspire through their early-decision policies to inflate tuition and suppress financial aid competition. D’Amico v. Consortium on Financing Higher Education names Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, the University of Chicago, and the University of Pennsylvania, among others, along with the Common Application and Coalition App platforms.
The plaintiffs allege the early-decision process amounts to per se price-fixing under the Sherman Act. Because early-decision commitments are binding, they argue, students cannot compare financial aid packages across schools, eliminating competitive pressure on cost. The complaint also alleges the schools share admitted-student lists to enforce compliance and falsely portray early-decision agreements as legally binding contracts when they are only honor-bound.38Washington Post. College Admissions Early Decision Price Fixing Lawsuit As of May 2026, the universities argue early decision is a voluntary pathway, and motions to dismiss remain pending.39Law360. D’Amico v. Consortium on Financing Higher Education
A Rare Resolved Case: Newark Special Education
Twelve years of federal monitoring of Newark Public Schools ended in September 2024. The monitoring stemmed from M.A. v. Newark Public Schools, a 2012 class action settlement that required 95% compliance with federal timelines for identifying and evaluating students with disabilities. When monitoring began, the district’s compliance rate for completing evaluations within 90 days of parental consent stood at 32%. By 2024 it consistently exceeded 95%, and the 20-day identification compliance rate had been at or above 98% since February 2021.40NJ Spotlight News. Monitoring Ends of Newark Public Schools Compliance With Special Education Timelines
Advocates cautioned that the settlement addressed procedural timelines, not the quality of services students receive. Plaintiffs’ counsel said they intended to “watch closely during the next year, to make sure there are no signs of backsliding.”41Education Law Center. Class Action Monitor Recommends Release of Newark Public Schools From Child Find Compliance Monitoring