Resource Center

• By Ámbar Caldwell, Paige Duggins-Clay, J.D., & Makiah Lyons, J.D. • IDRA Newsletter • June-July 2026 •

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025-26 term significantly reshaped the legal landscape affecting public education. Decisions involving race-ethnicity, immigration, LGBTQ+ rights and federal agencies narrowed civil rights protections and changed how schools, students and families may seek equal educational opportunity.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s term this year brought significant changes to the legal landscape affecting students, families and communities. Across decisions involving race, immigration, LGBTQ+ rights and the role of federal agencies, the court limited the civil rights protections available to communities seeking equal opportunity.

These decisions matter because the law does not exist separately from students’ (and their families’) everyday experiences. Whether students feel safe in their schools, whether families can stay together, whether parents can advocate for their children, and whether communities have meaningful access to opportunity are all shaped by legal frameworks and government decisions.

For more than 50 years, IDRA has advocated the right of every child to receive an excellent and equitable education. We believe public schools are foundational institutions of democracy, places where young people develop knowledge, agency, belonging and the skills necessary to participate fully in civic life.

The court’s 2025-26 term revealed an alarming pattern: while the court has increasingly limited tools designed to address historical and ongoing inequities, it has been less willing to recognize the harms caused when government systems target marginalized communities. These decisions have significant implications for education justice and the ongoing work to ensure every child is valued, supported and able to thrive.

The court’s 2025-26 term revealed an alarming pattern: while the court has increasingly limited tools designed to address historical and ongoing inequities, it has been less willing to recognize the harms caused when government systems target marginalized communities.

Race and the Law: Limiting Remedies While Dismissing Race-based Harm

The court’s recent race jurisprudence has emphasized a so-called “colorblind” approach to constitutional interpretation. Just four years ago in the Harvard and UNC affirmative action cases, the court restricted the consideration of race in college admissions (IDRA, 2023). This limited institutions’ ability to address the continuing effects of historical and present-day exclusion and promote educational diversity.

This approach creates a troubling tension when considered alongside the court’s decisions this term involving race and government power.

Disturbingly, in Louisiana v. Callais, the court narrowed protections under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by making it more difficult for communities of color to challenge electoral maps that diminish their political power (LDF, 2026). The Voting Rights Act was shaped by generations of organizing led by Black and Latino communities across the U.S. South and Southwest, including young people, students, educators and community leaders who risked their safety to challenge discrimination and expand democratic participation.

The implications of Callais extend beyond elections. Public education is shaped by democratic participation. Elected officials make decisions about school funding, accountability, curriculum, discipline and student rights. When communities lose political power, their ability to advocate for excellent and equitable schools is also diminished.

This trend of diminishing race/ethnicity-based protections extended to the streets of Los Angeles in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, where the court sanctioned immigration officials’ unapologetic use of racial profiling in enforcement actions (MALDEF, 2026). Without even hearing oral argument or allowing for the full development of a factual record, the court’s majority reversed an injunction prohibiting immigration agents from stopping people based solely on their race/ethnicity, language or occupation.

As Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated in her dissent, “We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job.” While just a few years ago in the SFFA decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said race could not even be used as one of many factors in the college admissions process, it now – in baffling contradiction – says in Vasquez Perdomo that race/ethncity can be a central reason for an immigration stop.

Finally, while not directly about race/ethnicity, the court’s decision in Landor v. Louisiana is relevant here. Continuing the trend of recognizing discrimination but not remedying it, the court in Landor limited the ability of a Rastafarian man whose hair was forcibly cut in violation of his religious beliefs to seek money damages from the responsible officials.

Reminiscent of the pursuit by Black, Latino and Indigenous students across the country and across generations for justice for hair discrimination, Landor underscores the unequal treatment of racial, ethnic, cultural and religious minorities in the law.

Immigration and the Law: Affirming Citizenship and Destabilizing Communities

In addition to its decision in Noem, the Supreme Court addressed fundamental questions about immigration and citizenship in Trump v. Barbara and Mullin v. Doe.

In Trump v. Barbara, the court rejected efforts to limit birthright citizenship, affirming that children born in the United States and subject to its laws are citizens from birth (ACLU, 2026a). The court’s 6-3 decision prevents implementation of Executive Order No. 14160, which sought to strip citizenship from children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present.

This decision prevented the creation of a “permanent subclass” of individuals born in the United States who were denied the dignity, stability and belonging that citizenship provides. Yet only a razor-thin majority (5-4) decided the case on the constitutional issue. So, while it was technically 6-3 on the executive order, only five justices stood by one of the most well-settled constitutional questions.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts reaffirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is “simply declaratory of… the law of the land” and that any child born on U.S. soil and subject to its laws is a citizen at birth.

For schools, this principle is essential. Every child who enters a classroom deserves the opportunity to learn, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

On the other hand, the court’s decision in Mullin v. Doe created significant uncertainty for families with Temporary Protected Status (TPS). TPS protects from removal for individuals from countries experiencing dangerous conditions.

In Mullin, the court allowed the administration to proceed with terminating TPS status for Haitian and Venezuelan families. It held that these families could not prove the discriminatory intent necessary to prevail on an equal protection claim because the government proffered a “race-neutral explanation for the government’s action.”

As Justice Kagan pointed out in her dissent, the court’s majority reached this conclusion despite voluminous “repellent and racially inflected” statements made by the U.S. President about Haitians and Venezuelans as evidence of a discriminatory purpose that the majority chose to ignore.

The court’s decision leaves many families vulnerable to instability and possible separation and sends an unacceptable message that thinly veiled or even overt racism can go unchallenged.

The implications of Callais extend beyond elections. Public education is shaped by democratic participation… When communities lose political power, their ability to advocate for excellent and equitable schools is also diminished.

LGBTQ+ Students: Undermining the Right to Learn in Safe and Affirming Schools

The Supreme Court’s decisions affecting LGBTQ+ youth this term raise serious concerns about the ability of schools to protect students from discrimination and create environments where every child belongs.

In Chiles v. Salazar, the court limited state restrictions on conversion therapy practices, framing the ban as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination against talk therapists (The Trevor Project, 2026). As Justice Jackson warned in her dissent, the majority’s decision “flouts centuries of state-standardized regulation of medical care.” Medical and mental health organizations have criticized the use of conversion therapy, noting that these practices can cause significant harm to LGBTQ+ youth.

In Mirabelli v. Bonta, the court considered a California law allowing schools to protect LGBTQ+ students’ privacy and safety by allowing them to maintain confidentiality about their gender identity when disclosure to parents could place the student at risk of harm (ACLU, 2026b). Even before a full case review at the lower court level, the Supreme Court intervened through the emergency docket, limiting the protections available under California’s policy.

For some students, schools may be the first or only environment where they experience acceptance and support. Policies that undermine student privacy can place vulnerable young people at risk.

Finally, in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the court upheld restrictions excluding transgender students from participating in athletics consistent with their gender identities (NWLC, 2026). These decisions affect students’ ability to fully participate in important aspects of school life and reinforce messages of exclusion (IDRA, 2026a).

Civil Rights: Dismantling and Discrediting of Civil Rights Agencies

The Supreme Court’s decisions concerning executive authority come at a moment when the federal government’s capacity to enforce education and civil rights protections is under significant strain.

Efforts to reduce the size and capacity of the U.S. Department of Education include reductions in force affecting staff responsible for administering programs and investigating civil rights complaints. These actions raise critical questions about whether students and families will continue to have meaningful access to federal protections (IDRA, 2026b).

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights serves a vital role in investigating discrimination complaints and ensuring that schools comply with federal law. These protections are especially important for students and families who face barriers to justice at the local level.

In McMahon v. New York, the court allowed the administration to move forward with significant reductions in force at the Department of Education while legal challenges proceed (Walsh, 2025). The decision heightened concerns about the department’s future capacity, including the Office for Civil Rights, to fulfill its mission of protecting students’ rights and enforcing federal education laws.

In addition, in Trump v. Slaughter, the court overruled 90 years of precedent to hold that Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners can be removed by the President at will, rather than only for cause. This decision threatens the independence of dozens of other federal agencies, from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Justice, both of which have been tasked with performing responsibilities of the Department of Education under the administration’s recent interagency agreement plan (U.S. Dept. of Ed., 2026).

Undermining agency independence is harmful because it transforms expert-led bodies into mere political instruments that can be used to reward allies or punish enemies based on partisan whims. Justice Sotomayor warned that this alters our government, shifting “tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the President’s hands.”

For students, rights are only meaningful when there are systems capable of protecting them. These decisions build on the court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright, further eroding the ability of federal institutions to carry out their legally assigned responsibilities by diminishing their independence, experience and expertise (Duggins-Clay, 2024).

Advancing Education Justice Beyond the Courtroom

The Supreme Court’s 2025-26 term presents significant challenges for students, families and communities. But the pursuit of education justice has never depended solely on court decisions.

Throughout history, progress has been achieved because students, families, educators and advocates organized to demand a more just and inclusive society. The protections we rely on today were built through collective action and the belief that every child deserves dignity and opportunity.

While the Supreme Court’s rulings reflect a devastating backslide for human and civil rights in the United States, they have not extinguished our resolve to seek justice for every child. At IDRA, we remain committed to defending students’ rights, strengthening public education and working alongside communities to ensure every child has access to an excellent education.

The future of our democracy depends on realizing the promise of an equal educational opportunity for all children, regardless of race/ethnicity, immigration status or identity.

Citations available online.

Ámbar Caldwell is an IDRA summer law clerk (ambar.caldwell@idra.org). Paige Duggins-Clay, J.D., is IDRA’s chief legal analyst (paige.duggins-clay@idra.org). Makiah Lyons, J.D., is IDRA’s staff attorney (makiah.lyons@idra.org).

Resources

ACLU. (February 19, 2026a). Barbara v. Donald J. Trump. American Civil Liberties Union.

ACLU. (July 8, 2026b). Mirabelli v. Bonta. American Civil Liberties Union. 

Duggins-Clay, P. (August 2024). Severe Implications of the Loper Bright Decision for Education and Civil Rights – 2024 U.S. Supreme Court Recap. IDRA Newsletter. 

IDRA (June 29, 2023). IDRA Statement: Supreme Court Ignores History & Precedent in Finding UNC and Harvard Affirmative Action Programs Unconstitutional – Students’ Racial Diversity Should be Celebrated, Not Minimized or Erased.

IDRA. (June 30, 2026a). State and School Leaders Must Act to Protect All Students’ Equal Educational Opportunity – U.S. Supreme Court Condones Discrimination Against Transgender Women and Girl Student Athletes.

IDRA. (January 7, 2026b). Federal Civil Rights Protections for Students are Unraveling – Major News Outlets Cite IDRA Experts and Families as Racism Complaints Remain Unresolved. 

LDF. (2026). Louisiana c. Callais. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

MALDEF. (September 18, 2025). What the Supreme Court Did and Did Not Say. Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

NWLC. (January 9, 2026). BPJ and Hecox: Two Supreme Court Cases Impacting Transgender Student Inclusion in Sports. National Women’s Law Center.

The Trevor Project. (March 31, 2026). Chiles v. Salazar: What you need to know about the U.S. Supreme Court case on conversion therapy. 

Walsh, M. (July 14, 2025). Trump admin can proceed with Ed. Dept. layoffs, Supreme Court rules. Education Week.

U.S. Department of Education. (June 16, 2026). U.S. Department of Education Announces Additional Partnerships to Strengthen Coordination for Individuals with Disabilities Programs, Bolster Civil Rights Enforcement.

FAQs

What Supreme Court decisions most affect public education?

The Supreme Court’s 2025-26 term included major decisions involving race-ethnicity, immigration, LGBTQ+ students, federal civil rights enforcement and executive authority, each carrying important implications for schools and students.

How do Supreme Court rulings affect K-12 schools?

Supreme Court decisions shape how schools protect students’ civil rights, respond to discrimination, implement federal law and provide equal educational opportunities.

What does this mean for students and families?

Many of the court’s decisions may reduce available legal protections or make it more difficult for families to challenge discrimination, increasing the importance of local advocacy and strong civil rights enforcement.

Why does the Office for Civil Rights matter?

The Office for Civil Rights investigates discrimination complaints involving schools that receive federal funding. Reductions in its staffing and authority can delay or weaken protections for students.

[© 2026, IDRA. This article originally appeared in the June-July edition of the IDRA Newsletter. Permission to reproduce this article is granted provided the article is reprinted in its entirety and proper credit is given to IDRA and the author.]