Are the President's Actions About Public Schools Legal?

Since Inauguration Day, the Trump administration has attacked public education and inclusive policies, often in direct conflict with existing law.

Here is a deeper look at the legality of the Trump administration’s actions.

View past legal updates:

August 27, 2026
July 23, 2026
June 18, 2026
June 5, 2026
May 8, 2026
April 24, 2026

Legal Rundown PDF archive to March 27, 2025

August 27, 2026

Litigation Updates

Challenges to Mail Voting Rule Continue After SCOTUS Lifts Injunction

On August 24, in a 6-3 unsigned shadow docket order, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a lower court injunction that blocked parts of a March 2026 executive order (EO) restricting mail voting. Among other provisions, the EO directed the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to issue regulations requiring the agency to create preapproved lists of eligible mail‑in voters and prohibit the delivery of absentee ballots to voters not on those lists. The Court found that the plaintiff states’ claims were not ripe for decision because USPS had not finalized the rule when they first filed suit. The order, however, does not clear the path for the EO to proceed. After USPS issued its final implementing rule on August 21st, the same group of plaintiff states filed a new lawsuit challenging the rule, while plaintiffs in a second case amended their complaint to add new claims. Both sets of plaintiffs have moved for temporary restraining orders; rulings on those motions are expected in the coming days and could prevent the rule from taking effect.

District Judge Ends Illinois In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students

On July 24, an Illinois district judge issued summary judgment permanently ending Illinois laws that allowed undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition rates and state scholarships. The judge held that such programs are preempted by a federal law that prohibits states from granting benefits to non-citizens that are not offered to all U.S. citizens. Similar lawsuits, all brought by the Department of Justice, are still pending in California, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Virginia, as are appeals in challenges to the Minnesota and Nebraska programs.

Recent Executive Actions

Attempting to Expand ED's Ability to Cancel Grants

On August 24, the Department of Education (ED) published a proposed rule that would significantly reshape the regulations governing federal education grantmaking. Among other changes, the new rule would effectively allow ED to cancel competitive grants at any point during the grant period for any reason. ED would be able to cancel awards that do not align with administration priorities, even if those priorities did not exist when the grants were awarded; require recipients to comply with anti-DEI and other executive orders as a condition of continued funding; and prioritize applicants who commit to lower overhead cost rates. Public comment on the proposed rule is open until September 23, 2026.

Seeking to Scale Back Federal E-Rate Program

On August 14, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a notice of proposed rulemaking that seeks comment on whether the E-Rate program should be narrowed or eliminated in light of child safety concerns related to screen time in schools. These comments will inform the FCC’s development of a future proposed rule implementing changes to E-Rate, a decades-old program established by Congress that provides financial support for schools and libraries to access the internet and other communication services. Public comment is due by October 13, 2026.

Overhauling Accreditation Standards

On August 20, ED published a proposed rule that would make it easier for new higher education accrediting agencies to gain federal recognition and for institutions to switch accreditors. The rule would also require accreditors to adopt standards on research misconduct, cost efficiency, and the promotion of “intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas amongst faculty.” In addition, it would prohibit standards that “encourage, direct, or otherwise require” institutions to adopt DEI-related policies or programs that include racial preferences, such as race-based scholarships. Public comment on the proposed rule is open until September 21, 2026.

Discouraging Student Discipline Policies Meant to Reduce Racial Disparities

On August 18, ED published a Dear Colleague Letter claiming that student discipline policies aimed at reducing unintentional racial disparities violate Title VI and the Constitution, except in “rare and exceedingly narrow” cases. While the Letter stops short of directing school districts to end policies that account for racial disparities, it makes clear that ED will find such policies unlawful and may initiate enforcement proceedings against districts that maintain them. The Letter follows ED’s July 2026 rescission of a longstanding rule that prohibited disparate-impact discrimination under Title VI.

Denying Residency and Visa Applications for Public Benefit Usage

On July 20, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a final rule allowing officials to reject applicants for permanent residency or visa extensions who use public benefits like school meals, Medicaid, and SNAP. This rule significantly broadens the types of social service use that DHS agents can cite to justify green card or visa extension denials. DHS predicts the rule will reduce federal and state spending on public benefit programs by roughly $13 billion per year, as it will dissuade eligible families from accessing these programs out of concern that it may jeopardize their immigration status.

July 23, 2026

Key SCOTUS Decisions—June 2026

SCOTUS Upholds State Bans on Transgender Student Athletes

On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld laws in Idaho and West Virginia that ban transgender girls and women from playing on girls’ and women’s sports teams in the consolidated cases of West Virginia v. B.P.J and Little v. Hecox. All nine Justices agreed that Title IX permits states to restrict participation based on sex assigned at birth. By a 5-4 vote, the Court rejected claims that the laws violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, reasoning that the bans are based on biological sex rather than transgender status and pass muster under the legal standard applicable to sex-based classifications because they are substantially related to states' interests in safety and competitive fairness. While the decision allows states to enact such bans, the Court emphasized that it did not decide whether schools may choose to allow transgender girls and women to participate on teams consistent with their gender identity. NEA filed an amicus brief supporting the student in B.P.J.

SCOTUS Narrowly Upholds Birthright Citizenship

On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Trump v. Barbara, one of several cases challenging Trump’s executive order (EO) purporting to eliminate birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents on temporary visas or without legal status. The Court found the EO unlawful by a 6-3 vote, but split 5-4 on the question of the EO’s constitutionality. A five-Justice majority held the EO unconstitutional, as its new definition of citizenship could not be reconciled with the guarantee of birthright citizenship embedded in the plain text of the 14th Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh, the sixth vote against the EO, found that the order violated a federal citizenship statute that he suggested Congress could revise, without addressing the constitutional question. All of the lower courts that have ruled on the EO found it blatantly unconstitutional. NEA joined an amicus brief along with 18 other labor organizations in support of birthright citizenship.

SCOTUS Allows President to Remove Most Independent Officers

On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, upholding Trump’s decision to fire Federal Trade Commissioner (FTC) Rebecca Slaughter without cause in early 2025 and overturning longstanding precedent protecting the independence of agencies led by officials who, by statute, are removable only for cause. The Court held that the Constitution does not permit Congress to restrict the President's removal authority over FTC commissioners because the agency exercises executive power, a decision that could affect other independent agencies, including the EEOC and FEC, and likely confirms a recent court of appeals opinion invalidating similar for-cause protections for members of the NLRB and MSPB. In a separate decision, Trump v. Cook, the Court ruled 5-4 that statutory restrictions on the President’s authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve are constitutional, and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook can remain in office while litigation over her allegedly for-cause firing continues. However, the Court made it clear that its decision was limited to the Federal Reserve.

SCOTUS Upends More Campaign Finance Limits

On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, ruling that longstanding limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates violate the First Amendment. The Court concluded the restrictions unnecessarily burden political speech and overruled its earlier decision in Colorado II, further expanding constitutional protections for campaign spending. The decision is likely to have an immediate impact on campaign spending ahead of the November 2026 midterms.

SCOTUS Says States Can Count Mail-In Ballots After Election Day

On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Watson v. Republican National Committee, upholding a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted as long as they are postmarked by Election Day and arrive within five business days. Fourteen states and D.C. have policies providing grace periods for mail-in ballots, and another 15 states do so for military and overseas ballots only. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett joined the court’s liberals in the majority. In her majority opinion, Justice Barrett wrote that, so long as voters cast their ballots on election day, federal election statutes did not set a deadline for when those ballots must arrive in order to be counted.

Litigation Updates

NEA Victory: Court Blocks ED Rule Narrowing Employer Eligibility for PSLF

On June 30, a Massachusetts district court — granting summary judgment in a challenge by a coalition of plaintiffs including NEA — vacated the Department of Education's (ED) final rule narrowing employer eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. The decision prevented the rule from taking effect on July 1st and permanently blocks its implementation. The rule would have allowed ED to disqualify employers, including school districts and higher education institutions, based on a broad range of activities the Secretary of Education deemed to have a "substantial illegal purpose." This included providing gender-affirming care, maintaining DEI policies, supporting undocumented immigrants, and other activities targeted by the Trump Administration. The court held that the rule exceeded ED's statutory authority, was arbitrary and capricious, impermissibly vague, and violated the First Amendment.

NEA Victory: District Court Partially Blocks New Student Loan Cap Rule

On June 24, in a lawsuit filed by NEA and a coalition of professional associations, a D.C. district court granted a preliminary injunction blocking ED’s narrow definition of "professional degree" in its rule implementing new statutory caps on federal graduate student loans. The court found that the rule likely violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because its definition of "professional degree" is contrary to law, and that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm should the rule go into effect. In response to the court order, ED published an expanded list of "professional" graduate degrees, which still excludes advanced degrees in teaching and education leadership. NEA continues to advocate for a broader definition of "professional" degree as the case continues.

District Judge Says Agencies Can't Terminate Grants Due to New Priorities

On July 17, a Massachusetts district court issued summary judgment finding that federal regulations and the U.S. Constitution’s Spending Clause do not authorize the Trump Administration to terminate grants based on new priorities identified after the award was made. While the decision does not directly apply to grants issued by ED, the regulation it interprets is the basis for many of ED's grant terminations. The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of 21 attorneys general and three governors.

District Judge Rejects Challenge to DOL Union Reporting Requirements

On July 2, a D.C. district court denied AFL-CIO’s motion for preliminary injunction in its lawsuit challenging the Department of Labor’s (DOL) final rule — which was issued based on a 2020 proposed rule without an opportunity for public comment — that significantly expands financial disclosure requirements for labor unions that currently file LM-2 reports. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to delay the rule’s effective date until at least July 1, 2027. The court held that AFL-CIO failed to demonstrate that it faces irreparable harm, and that harm was unlikely to occur before the court decides the merits under an expedited summary judgment schedule.

MTA Sues to Restore $200 Million in Withheld Education Research Funds

On June 30, the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA), represented by attorneys including NEA’s Office of General Counsel, and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging actions by ED and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that have prevented hundreds of millions of dollars appropriated by Congress for education research, statistics, and school-support programs from being spent as required by law. The impacted funds include nearly $200 million Congress appropriated for ED’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) that will expire and return to the Treasury if not spent by September 30, 2026. The lawsuit argues that ED and OMB’s interference with the funds violates the Constitution and federal law. It seeks a court order requiring OMB to release the funds and ED to spend them as directed by Congress.

DOJ Sues 4 More States Over In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students

Since the end of June, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has sued four more states (Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island) over laws allowing undocumented college students to pay in-state tuition rates. In Kansas, officials filed a proposed joint consent decree asking the court to permanently enjoin the law; the court has not yet ruled. Four other states (Texas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Nebraska) have already agreed to end their in-state tuition policies through voluntary consent decrees. Kentucky’s consent decree is currently on appeal, and NEA filed an amicus brief in support of maintaining Kentucky’s in-state tuition program. DOJ’s lawsuit against Minnesota was dismissed in March, and similar challenges remain pending in California, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia. The litigation over the Nebraska and Minnesota programs are currently on appeal.

Recent Executive Actions

Failing to Fulfill ED's Core Statutory Funcitons Due to RIFs

On June 22, ED’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report finding that mass reductions-in-force (RIFs) between January and March 2025 eliminated several suboffices in 15 of 17 offices, including some that "appear to have been performing statutory functions or oversight and monitoring functions." Between January and March 2025, ED also delayed or discontinued hundreds of competitive grants in programs that Congress explicitly authorized, and terminated 129 contracts worth $1.3 billion — some of which appear to have been statutorily required.

Finalizing New College Accountability Metrics

On July 1, ED issued its final rule establishing new accountability metrics that require programs at over 4,000 higher education institutions to show that graduates earn more than comparable degree holders (high school for undergraduate programs, bachelor’s for graduate programs). Programs that fail to meet this requirement in two out of three years could lose access to federal student loans and, after three consecutive failures, Pell Grants. This could reduce financial aid access for educator preparation programs, where earnings are typically lower.

Capping Student Visa Stays at Four Years

On July 17, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a final rule limiting F-1 and J-visa holders — which include international students, short-term educators, and researchers — from staying in the U.S. for longer than four years. The rule also requires F-1 and J-visa holders to seek extensions and undergo "regular assessments" by DHS to remain beyond the four-year cap. Previously, F-1 and J-visa holders were able to remain in the U.S. for the duration of their studies, a policy especially important for doctoral candidates whose programs often exceed four years. The rule is set to take effect on September 15, 2026.

Rescinding Title VI and Title VII Disparate Impact Protections

On July 23, ED published a direct final rule that rescinds its longstanding Title VI regulation prohibiting disparate impact discrimination. Eleven other agencies have also repealed their Title VI disparate impact protections without notice and comment, including the Department of Labor, Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security, among others. Similarly, on July 6th, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released a final interpretive rule that rescinds its longstanding Title VII guidance finding that systems and practices that improve employment opportunities for historically underrepresented groups are not disparate impact discrimination prohibited by the statute. The move reflects the Trump Administration’s view that these practices are unlawful under federal civil rights laws and the Constitution.

On June 5, a Massachusetts district judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking a Department of Agriculture (USDA) requirement that states certify that they do not operate any DEI programs or “promote gender ideology” in order to receive funding for programs like SNAP and the National School Lunch Program. States challenged the requirement under the Constitution’s Spending Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

District Judge Blocks $100K Fee for H-1B Visas

On June 8, a Massachusetts district judge granted summary judgement for a group of states that challenged Trump's Presidential Proclamation requiring a $100,000 fee for new H‑1B visa petitions. The court held that the fee violates the separation of powers and exceeds the President’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The government has appealed the decision.

Nebraska to End In-State Tuition Policy for Undocumented Students

On June 3, a Nebraska district judge approved a voluntary consent decree between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Nebraska to end the state’s law allowing certain undocumented students to pay in-state tuition at public colleges, after DOJ sued in April 2026. Nebraska is the fourth state to enter a consent decree (following Texas, Oklahoma, and Kentucky). DOJ’s lawsuit against Minnesota was dismissed in March, and challenges remain pending in California, Illinois, and Virginia.

State Coalition Challenges Anti-DEI Federal Contracting EO

On June 10, a coalition of 19 states and DC filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s March 2026 executive order that requires all federal contractors to certify that they do not engage in “racially discriminatory DEI activities.” The states argue that the order impedes their ability to combat racial discrimination and is unconstitutionally vague and seek an injunction blocking it.

AFL-CIO Sues DOL Over New Union Reporting Requirements

On June 10, the AFL-CIO filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Labor’s final rule that significantly increases financial disclosure requirements for labor unions filing LM-2 reports. AFL-CIO alleges that the rule violates the APA and has asked the court to delay its effective date of July 1, 2026, until at least July 1, 2027.

States Sue ED Over Special Education Grant Cuts

On June 9, California, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Education’s (ED) discontinuation of multi-year State Personnel Development Grants (SPDGs), which fund professional development for special educators. The states contend that the cancellations violate the APA and the Constitution.

Recent Executive Actions

Transferring ED’s Special Education and Civil Rights Responsibilities

On June 16, ED announced four new interagency agreements (IAAs). Under the first, ED’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (including the administration of nearly all IDEA grant programs) will move to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). A second IAA transfers many functions of ED’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to DOJ. DOJ will also assume responsibility for complaints involving parental rights and student privacy, and will administer the Equity Assistance Centers, mandated by statute to provide guidance to school boards and government agencies on school desegregation.

Rescinding Title VI Disparate Impact Protections at USDA

On June 17, USDA published a direct final rule rescinding its longstanding Title VI regulations prohibiting disparate impact discrimination (when a facially neutral policy or action has the effect of disproportionately harming individuals on the basis of race, color, or national origin). The rule applies to all USDA programs, including the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program. USDA is the third agency — following DOJ and the Department of Energy — to repeal its disparate impact regulations. Several other agencies (including ED) are pursuing similar final rules, with the Department of Homeland Security’s rule scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on June 22.

Waiving ESEA Funding and Accountability Requirements for Indiana

On June 16, ED approved Indiana’s request to waive certain requirements under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The waiver allows Indiana to consolidate a small portion of its state-level activities funds from five separate ESEA formula grants into a single block grant, approves a state pilot program permitting certain school districts to consolidate their funding under two ESEA programs into a block grant and authorizes Indiana to relax certain high school accountability requirements, like test scores and graduation rates, in favor of career-readiness metrics. ED has encouraged states to apply for ESEA waivers since July 2025 and approved similar waivers for Iowa and Louisiana.

On May 21, NEA and a coalition of professional associations filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Education’s (ED) Reimagining and Improving Student Education ("RISE") Rule, which narrowly defined “professional” program for the purpose of implementing new statutory caps on federal graduate student loans. The lawsuit argues that the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by illegally limiting the kinds of postgraduate degrees that count as “professional” degrees and subjecting students in a range of programs to lower loan caps. A separate lawsuit challenging the rule was also filed by a coalition of 23 states on May 19.

NEA Files Lawsuit Challenging NPD Grant Terminations

On June 3, NEA, the Lawyers' Committee for Rhode Island, and the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a lawsuit challenging ED’s unlawful termination of 28 National Professional Development (NPD) Grants meant to improve educational instruction for English learners and expand the bilingual teacher workforce. ED abruptly pulled the grants in September 2025, citing “divisive ideology.” The lawsuit argues that the terminations violated the First Amendment and the APA.

NEA Lawsuit Against Dismantling of ED Continues

On May 8, a Maryland district judge denied the government’s motion to dismiss NEA’s lawsuit challenging the dismantling of ED. The court held that the plaintiff coalition (including NEA and the NAACP) plausibly alleged that the Trump Administration’s actions to shutter ED, including a March 2025 mass reduction-in-force and the cancellation of billions in grant awards and contracts, violated the Constitution and the APA and harmed the plaintiffs’ members. The decision, which noted that no statute gives the President the power to shut down the Department, means that the case will continue.

District Judge Will Not Restore Sensitive Locations Protections

On May 6, a Minnesota district judge denied two Minnesota school districts’ request to temporarily reinstate a longstanding Department of Homeland Security policy that prohibited immigration enforcement activity in sensitive locations such as schools, hospitals, and churches. The court found that the districts likely lacked standing to challenge the Trump Administration’s 2025 guidance rescinding the sensitive locations policy. The ruling is not a final judgment in the case, which will continue. NEA's motion for similar relief in an Oregon case is still pending.

NEA Victory: Educator Matthew Hawn Wins Appeal

On May 26, the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled in favor of NEA member Matthew Hawn, a Tennessee educator who was dismissed in 2021 after playing a spoken-word poem about white privilege in his high school contemporary issues class. The Tennessee Education Association challenged the termination, with NEA supporting the case, including through an amicus brief on appeal. The court found that Hawn had not unreasonably denied students access to differing viewpoints and that termination was not warranted. We are hopeful that the appeals court ruling will bring to an end this long-running, unjustified effort to terminate a highly regarded teacher with 16 years of exemplary service.

Recent Executive Actions

Politicizing Federal Grantmaking

On May 29, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other agencies (including ED) published a proposed rule that would significantly expand executive branch discretion to award, condition, suspend, and terminate federal funding. Among other provisions, the rule would require senior political appointees to ensure all grants are consistent with Administration priorities and the “national interest,” limit the role of peer review in selecting grant recipients, and allow agencies to terminate grants found to promote “racial preferences,” “gender ideology,” “illegal immigration,” or “anti-American values” with minimal process. Public comment on the proposal is open until July13.

Withholding Nearly $300 Million in Education Research Funding

The Trump Administration is currently withholding $289 million appropriated by Congress to support federal education research and data collection, through ED’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES). If these funds are not used by September 30, 2026, they will expire and return to the Treasury.

Expanding Reporting Requirements for Unions

On June 1, the Department of Labor (DOL) published a final rule that significantly expands financial disclosure requirements for labor unions that file LM-2 reports without an opportunity for public comment. DOL previously published and collected comments on a proposed rule that would have made some of these changes to LM-2 reporting requirements in December 2020, at the tail end of the first Trump term, but the proposal was withdrawn by the Biden Administration without being finalized. Nonetheless, DOL claims that the 2020 notice-and-comment process carries over to its new final rule. The rule takes effect on July 1st and will apply to each LM-2 filing union at the start of its next fiscal year.

Increasing Restrictions for Absentee Voting

On June 2, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) published a proposed rule mandating that each state provide a list of eligible mail‑in voters for USPS to approve before delivering ballots, as directed in a March 2026 executive order (EO). Public comment on the proposed rule is open until July 2.

May 8, 2026

Litigation Updates

SCOTUS Agrees to Gut Core Provision of Voting Rights Act

On April 29, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) issued a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais that effectively neutered Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which bars racial discrimination in voting. The case — reargued this term after SCOTUS first heard it last year — raised the question of what plaintiffs must show to establish that a redistricted map was drawn based on impermissible considerations of race. Despite the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act directing courts to focus on the effects of redistricting, SCOTUS instead insisted that proof of intent is necessary to strike down maps under Section 2. It further concluded that such intent can only be found when race is the sole explanation for the district lines. Consequently, the Court struck down a Louisiana map that had been drawn to remedy the effective disenfranchisement of Black voters, deeming it an impermissible racial gerrymander. The majority suggested that if a redistricting plan could be explained as a partisan gerrymander, it would largely be insulated from being challenged as a racial gerrymander. In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that this ruling leaves Section 2 “all but a dead letter.” The Court issued an unsigned, one-paragraph order on May 4 putting its decision into immediate effect, prompting swift efforts in Louisiana and other states to implement new maps ahead of the 2026 elections.

DOJ Sues NJ Over In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students

On April 30, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued New Jersey over its law allowing undocumented college students to pay in-state tuition, which DOJ claims violates federal law by giving in-state undocumented students access to benefits not available to out-of-state U.S. citizens. DOJ has challenged similar policies in eight other states. Its case against Minnesota was dismissed in March and is on appeal. Litigation is ongoing in California, Illinois, and Virginia, while Texas, Oklahoma, and Kentucky entered consent decrees ending their policies. Nebraska’s proposed consent decree is pending court approval.

District Judge Expands Block on ED’s Demand for Admissions Data

On April 27, a Massachusetts district judge expanded a preliminarily injunction blocking ED from enforcing a requirement that higher education institutions submit admissions data by race and sex. The order, which previously applied to public colleges in 17 plaintiff states, now also covers six private colleges and members of six higher education associations (about 170 additional public institutions). The judge held that the data reporting requirement likely violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) due to its “rushed and chaotic” rollout, accelerated implementation timeline, and ED’s failure to meaningfully address concerns raised in public comments.

Recent Executive Actions

Withholding $2 Billion in Education Grants

As of May 6, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is withholding over $2 billion appropriated in the FY 2026 appropriations act for 35 education programs that the Trump Administration had unsuccessfully proposed that Congress defund. The withheld funds includes $235 million for education research, $220 million for teacher preparation and training, $150 million for community schools initiatives, and $139 million for magnet schools.

Proposing DEI Reporting Requirements for Federal Contractors

On May 6, multiple agencies, including the General Services Administration, published a proposed information collection to implement President Trump’s March 2026 executive order (EO) requiring all federal contractors (including higher education institutions) to agree to not engage in “racially discriminatory DEI activities.” The proposal would necessitate that contractors provide information about their own compliance with the EO’s anti-DEI requirements and report potential violations by their subcontractors. Contractors found to be in violation of the EO would risk cancellation of their contracts.

Finalizing New Federal Student Loan Caps

On May 1, the Department of Education (ED) published its final Reimagining and Improving Student Education ("RISE") Rule, which ends the Grad PLUS loan program and implements the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s limits on the federal student loan aid available to graduate students. Starting in July 2026, new borrowers can take out only $20,500 per year in federal student loans for most graduate programs, but may borrow up to $50,000 per year for certain, very limited “professional degree” programs. The final rule classifies teaching, nursing, and social work degree programs, among others, as “graduate” programs subject to the lower cap. ED received 81,000 comments on its proposed version of this rule, including many raising concerns about the "professional degree” definition.

April 24, 2026

Litigation Updates

SCOTUS to Weigh Religious Exemptions to Preschool Nondiscrimination

On April 20, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear St. Mary Parish v. Roy next term, which asks whether private religious schools that receive public funds from Colorado’s universal preschool program are entitled to exemptions from the program’s nondiscrimination requirements. To receive funding, schools must provide children with an equal opportunity to enroll, regardless of race, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other factors. The plaintiffs claim that Colorado’s refusal to exempt Catholic preschools from the nondiscrimination provision — so that they are free to reject LGBTQ+ children and families — violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Both the District Court and the Tenth Circuit ruled in favor of Colorado because the nondiscrimination provisions were neutral and generally applicable and therefore permissible under long established Supreme Court precedent.

Appeals Court Upholds Texas Ten Commandments Law

On April 21, the Fifth Circuit issued a 9-8 en banc decision upholding a Texas law that requires public schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton, concluding the law does not violate the Establishment Clause because a poster displaying the Commandments would not have offended the founders’ understanding of the prohibited establishment of religion, nor is it coercive or oppressive in violation of the Free Exercise Clause (even if it inspires disagreement). The plaintiffs, who are a multifaith group of Texas families, anticipate seeking review in the Supreme Court. NEA and the Arkansas Education Association filed an amicus brief in the Eighth Circuit in a similar case challenging Arkansas’ Ten Commandments law.

Higher Education Associations Challenge Anti-DEI Federal Contracting EO

On April 20, a coalition of higher education groups and minority contractor associations filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s March 2026 executive order (EO) that requires all federal contractors to agree to not engage in “racially discriminatory DEI activities,” or else risk the cancellation of their contracts. The EO also directs the amendment of the Federal Acquisition Regulations to require these conditions in all federal procurements, solicitations, and contracts. The plaintiffs argue that the EO violates their First Amendment rights and exceeds the President’s authority.

DOJ Sues Nebraska Over In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students

On April 21, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Nebraska over its law allowing undocumented college students to pay in-state tuition rates and benefit from scholarships, claiming that it is preempted by federal immigration laws. The same day, DOJ and Nebraska officials filed a proposed joint consent decree, asking the court to permanently enjoin the law. The court has not yet ruled. Texas, Oklahoma, and Kentucky have already agreed to end their similar policies through separate consent decrees, while DOJ’s lawsuit against Minnesota was dismissed in March. Challenges are still pending in California, Illinois, and Virginia.

District Court Vacates Magnet School Grant Discontinuation

On April 8, a New York district judge ruled that ED unlawfully discontinued five Magnet School Assistance Program grants for New York City Public Schools over their trans-inclusive policies. The court found that ED failed to follow required Title IX procedures when it ended the grants (including findings and an opportunity for voluntary compliance) and ordered the funding restored within 10 days of the order.

Recent Executive Actions

Closing ED Office for English Language Acquisition

On February 13, in a letter only made public this week, the Department of Education (ED) notified Congress of plans to formally dissolve its Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA), after dismissing nearly all its staff in 2025. OELA administers $890 million in Title III grants for English language learners and $60 million in teacher professional development grants, both of which will move to other ED offices. Although the letter says that OELA’s Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program will also be transferred internally, ED previously entered into an interagency agreement shifting program administration to the Department of the Interior. The letter provides Congress with 90 days’ notice, which means that ED can initiate these actions starting May 14.

Claiming School “Forced Outing” Prevention Policies Violate FERPA

On April 17, ED found four Kansas school districts violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) by having policies that protect against the unwanted disclosure of a student’s gender identity or sexual orientation to parents (known as “forced outing”). ED uses its March 2025 Dear Colleague Letter as a basis for claiming that such student privacy policies may violate parents’ rights under FERPA to access their students’ education records. ED is demanding that districts make documents related to "gender transition" readily accessible to parents and rescind any trans-inclusive policies, or else risk losing federal funding.

Proposing New College Accountability Metrics

On April 17, ED proposed a new accountability rule requiring programs at over 4,000 higher education institutions to show that graduates earn more than comparable degree holders (high school for undergraduate programs, bachelor’s for graduate programs). Programs that fail twice within three years could lose access to federal loans and, in some cases, Pell Grants. This could reduce financial aid access for educator preparation programs, where earnings are typically lower. Public comment is open until May 20, and the rule is slated to take effect on July 1.