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:

February 13, 2026
January 30, 2026
January 9, 2026
December 12, 2025
November 21, 2025

Legal Rundown PDF archive to March 27, 2025

February 13, 2026

Recent Executive Actions

Failing to Investigate Thousands of Civil Rights Cases

On February 2, the Government Accountability Office released a report examining how the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the Department of Education (ED) has functioned following the March 2025 RIF, which halved its workforce and cost more than $28.5 million in salaries and benefits for laid-off staff. Although OCR resolved over 7,000 of the more than 9,000 new complaints it received between March and September 2025, it dismissed 90% of the resolved cases without investigation (compared to 49%-81% dismissal rates in prior years). Meanwhile, media reports indicate OCR’s case backlog grew from around 12,000 open investigations in January 2025 to roughly 25,000 by January 2026. During that time, OCR disclosed just 177 resolution agreements (compared to 518 in 2024), none of which involved racial harassment. Likewise, none of the disclosed Title IX case resolutions involved sexual assault, sexual harassment, gender harassment, or pregnancy/parental status discrimination; instead, one quarter concerned policies permitting the inclusion of transgender students in athletics.

Signing $79B Education Funding Bill Into Law

On February 3, President Trump signed the FY 2026 budget bill into law. The bill funds ED at $79 billion, rejecting the deep cuts to federal education funding proposed by the Trump Administration. The law requires ED to distribute formula grant funding to states and districts on time and to maintain sufficient staffing to fulfill its statutory responsibilities. These mandates appear to be a rebuke of ED’s withholding of billions in formula grant dollars for weeks last summer and elimination of about half of its career staff over the past year. The bill also continues a longstanding restriction prohibiting ED from transferring appropriated funds to other agencies.

Issuing Guidance Allowing Teacher Prayer in Public Schools

On February 5, ED issued guidance claiming that public school employees may engage in religious expression — including “visible, personal prayer” with students — “during the conduct of their work.” ED interprets the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District to mean that educators’ religious expression at school only violates the First Amendment if it is offered “on behalf of the school or in contexts that students cannot opt out of” or is otherwise coercive. In ED’s view, the simple fact of prayer being visible to students is not itself coercive. The move replaces ED’s 2023 guidance on religious expression in public schools, which maintained that educators may engage in private prayer during the workday, but could not do so while carrying out official duties and could not encourage or discourage students’ participation in religious activities.

Litigation Updates

NEA Files Emergency Motion to Stop ICE Enforcement Near Schools

On February 12, NEA filed an emergency motion for relief in a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s January 2025 rescission of a longstanding policy limiting immigration enforcement at “sensitive locations,” such as schools, hospitals, courthouses, and churches. The motion, which argues that the policy change is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and irreparably harms educators around the country, is supported by testimony from 60 teachers and health care workers from 18 states. Earlier last week, Education Minnesota and two Minnesota school districts also filed a lawsuit seeking to restore the sensitive locations policy. The complaint similarly alleges that the rescission violated the APA and its implementation at or near Minnesota public schools has caused significant disruption, including school closures and declines in attendance.

Appeals Court Vacates Injunction Blocking Anti-DEI Executive Orders

On February 6, the Fourth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction that blocked implementation of two executive orders (EOs) targeting DEI practices in the federal government and private sectors, including higher education. While the plaintiffs lacked standing for some claims and were unlikely to succeed in showing other EO provisions were facially unconstitutional, the court left open the possibility that use of the EOs in specific enforcement actions could be unlawful. The case has been remanded to the lower court.

Academic Labor Union Challenges Trump’s “Gold Card” Executive Order

On February 3, the American Association of University Professors and several prospective visa applicants filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s “Gold Card” visa program, which fast tracks applicants who pay $1 million under visa programs designed to admit highly talented individuals to the United States based on their merit and ability. Plaintiffs argue that the “Gold Card” program exceeds the President’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act by changing the statutory criteria for the impacted visa programs and violates the APA. They are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

January 30, 2026

Litigation Updates

SCOTUS Hears Arguments in Transgender Student Athlete Cases

On January 13, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in West Virginia v. B.P.J and Little v. Hecox, challenges by students to laws in West Virginia and Idaho that prohibit transgender girls and women from joining school sports teams that align with their gender identity. NEA filed an amicus brief in support of the students. At oral argument, the Court appeared inclined to find that the bans do not violate either Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause. A decision is expected by June.

ED Drops Appeal Over Anti-DEI Guidance Ruling

On January 21, the Department of Education (ED) withdrew its appeal of a Maryland district court’s August order striking down its February 14th anti-DEI Dear Colleague Letter and accompanying Certification Requirement. In April, the court had issued a stay blocking ED from implementing these efforts pending litigation; its August decision granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs and vacated the Letter and Certification Requirement. NEA brought a separate suit challenging ED’s anti-DEI moves and, in April, obtained a preliminary injunction barring their implementation at any school that employs an NEA member.

District Judge Blocks Head Start Layoffs and Anti-DEI Directive

On January 6, a Washington state district judge blocked the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from implementing office closures and mass layoffs in the Head Start program and requiring grantees to certify that they do not promote DEI. The court’s preliminary injunction decision found these changes were arbitrary and capricious and kept providers from complying with the law. The ruling follows a previous preliminary injunction that blocked HHS from restricting Head Start participation to verified U.S. citizens and immigrants with legal status.

District Judge Orders ED to Reevaluate TRIO Grant Cancellations

On January 16, a D.C. district judge issued a preliminary injunction vacating ED’s decisions denying or discontinuing certain TRIO grants. The court found these actions unlawful on several grounds, including that the agency improperly penalized grantees and applicants for allegedly promoting “DEI” and did not follow statutory procedures. ED now must reconsider the challenged grant determinations.

Oregon Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of ULP Challenge to Teachers’ Strike

On January 22, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the state Employment Relations Board (ERB)’s dismissal of an unfair labor practice (ULP) complaint against the Portland Association of Teachers (PAT) and the Oregon Education Association. The complaint was brought by parents seeking class damages for childcare costs and learning loss allegedly incurred during PAT’s November 2023 strike. The court held that under Oregon’s labor-relations statute, only the public employer — not third parties like parents — have standing to bring a ULP complaint challenging the legality of a public-employee strike.

Recent Executive Actions Impacting Education

Transferring ED Higher Education Grants and Staff to DOL

On January 15, ED announced that it has taken new steps to implement a September interagency agreement to shift higher education program administration to the Department of Labor (DOL). Staff in the Higher Education Programs Division of ED’s Office of Postsecondary Education have been detailed to DOL, and grantees will transition to DOL's grant and payment management system. The ED-DOL agreement says DOL will administer the grant programs, while ED retains authority over budgets, program criteria and priorities, and functions like hiring.

Launching Title IX Investigations into 18 Educational Institutions

On January 14, ED announced a string of Title IX investigations into 18 K-12 and higher education entities with policies that allow transgender students to play on sports teams aligning with their gender identity. The entities under investigation include New York City Department of Education, Washington’s Tacoma Public Schools, and Hawaii State Department of Education.

Implementing New Federal Student Loan Caps

On January 30, ED published a proposed rule implementing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s limits on the federal student loan aid available to graduate students. Under the Act, starting in July 2026, new borrowers can take out only $20,500 per year in federal student loans for most graduate programs, but students in “professional degree” programs may borrow up to $50,000 per year. ED’s proposed rule would classify teaching, nursing, and social work degree programs, among others, as “non-professional” and therefore subject to the lower cap. The proposal is open for public comment until March 2.

January 9, 2026

Litigation Updates

NEA Victory: Court Halts Trump Administration Effort to Close FMCS

On December 30, a New York district judge granted summary judgment vacating a new Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) policy limiting the kinds of labor disputes eligible for mediation. FMCS enacted the policy in response to a March Executive Order that directed Trump Administration officials to shutter the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). The court ruled that the policy, which bars smaller bargaining units from pursuing mediation in labor disputes, and the resultant mass layoffs of FMCS employees, were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). As a result, FMCS was ordered to reverse the reductions-in-force (RIFs). The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of unions, including NEA and the Ohio Education Association.

District Judge Rules School-Based Mental Health Grant Cancelations Unlawful

On December 19, a Washington state district judge granted summary judgement vacating the Department of Education's (ED's) discontinuations of school-based mental health grants in 16 states based on grantees’ alleged “DEI activities.” The court found that the discontinuations violated the APA because ED did not comply with regulatory procedures, provide individualized explanations for the decisions, or account for reliance interests. ED must now make new continuation decisions for each of 138 grants in the plaintiff states. The ruling builds on an October preliminary injunction that blocked many of the discontinuations, and came one week after ED awarded $208 million in new school-based mental health grants, with the condition that grantees may not use funds to promote “gender ideology” or DEI.

District Judge Blocks Federal RIFs From October 1 - January 30

On December 17, a California district judge issued a preliminary injunction barring the Trump Administration from implementing RIFs at ED and other agencies between October 1st and January 30 and directing the Administration to rescind all RIF notices issued to employees at those agencies during last fall’s government shutdown. The order forces the Administration to comply with a provision in the November 2025 Continuing Resolution that prohibits any further federal RIFs through January 30. The Administration appealed the order in late December, but withdrew its appeal without explanation on January 2.

District Judge Upholds Trump H-1B Visa Fee Proclamation

On December 23, a D.C. district judge upheld as lawful President Trump’s September 19 proclamation requiring employers to pay an additional $100,000 fee before new H-1B visa applications may be processed. On December 12, a coalition of 20 states filed a separate lawsuit in Massachusetts challenging the proclamation. An NEA analysis shows that in fiscal year 2025, over 2,300 H-1B visa holders were employed across more than 500 K–12 public school districts nationwide.

DOJ Sues Virginia Over In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students

On December 29, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the state of Virginia, claiming that its policy allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities is preempted by federal immigration laws. Virginia officials filed a joint motion siding with the federal government, a first step toward a consent judgment to end the policy. The Legal Aid Justice Center and the ACLU of Virginia filed an emergency motion to intervene on behalf of the Dream Project. This is DOJ’s seventh such challenge. Cases in California, Minnesota, Illinois, and Kentucky (where a third-party intervenor is defending the state’s policy) are pending; Texas and Oklahoma agreed in consent judgments to end their policies.

Texas AFT Sues State Over Alleged Retaliation for Educators’ Speech

On January 6, the Texas American Federation of Teachers (Texas AFT) filed a lawsuit against the Texas Education Agency, challenging its policy directing school districts to report off-duty educator speech perceived as critical of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk following his assassination. The complaint contends that the policy violates the First Amendment by retaliating against public-school employees for views expressed in their social media posts and has resulted in the firing, suspension, and discipline of AFT members. Texas AFT alleges that the directive is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, thereby enabling arbitrary enforcement, and seeks a preliminary injunction.

Recent Executive Actions Impacting Education

Terminating $168 Million in Community Schools Grants

On December 12, the Department of Education abruptly canceled $168 million across 19 grants in 11 states and D.C. under the Full-Service Community Schools program (FSCS). The grants, which supported school-based wraparound services for students, families, and communities, were discontinued just two weeks before the grantees expected to receive their 2026 funding, on January 1st. ED claims that the canceled awards promoted disfavored “DEI activities” that the Trump Administration considers unlawful.

Waiving ESEA Requirements for Iowa

On January 7, ED approved the state of Iowa’s request for a waiver of statutory restrictions on its use of certain federal funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). ED’s decision allows Iowa to consolidate a small portion of its state-activities funds from four separate ESEA formula grants into a single state-level block grant instead of managing them separately. Iowa requested the waiver, which marks the first time ED has allowed a state to consolidate ESEA funds, after ED encouraged states to apply for permission to bypass statutory limits on ESEA funds in a July Dear Colleague Letter.

December 12, 2025

Recent Executive Actions Impacting Education

Rescinding Title VI Disparate Impact Regulations

On December 10, the Department of Justice (DOJ) published a final rule that eliminates regulations providing for disparate-impact liability under Title VI. This move ends longstanding civil-rights protections that prohibit DOJ funding recipients from maintaining policies that disproportionately harm people of color. DOJ claims its new policy is consistent with Trump’s April executive order (EO) directing the Attorney General to repeal disparate-impact regulations and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (“SFFA”). The rule takes immediate effect and was issued without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. While the rescission formally applies only to DOJ programs, DOJ’s role in coordinating Title VI enforcement across the federal government means that other agencies are likely to follow.

Directing RIF’d OCR Employees to Return to Work Amidst Complaint Backlog

On December 5, the Department of Education (ED) ordered approximately 250 Office for Civil Rights (OCR) employees currently on administrative leave to return to work to help tackle a backlog of over 25,000 discrimination complaints. ED laid off the impacted workers in March and subsequently reinstated them pursuant to a court order. After an appellate court stayed that order, on October 14, ED issued new reduction-in-force (RIF) notices to the employees, which are subject to renewed legal challenges. ED did not specify how many of the 250 workers will return to duty starting December 15th, but indicated that it still intends to proceed with the RIFs moving forward.

Proposing New Federal Student Loans Caps

On November 6, ED announced a proposed rule that would implement changes to Federal Student Aid as required by the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” including a new Repayment Assistance Plan that would lower the federal student loan cap for most graduate students. The law subjects new borrowers to annual federal lending limits of $20,500 for graduate programs starting in July 2026 and requires ED to identify “professional degree” programs eligible for a higher federal loan cap of $50,000 per year. ED’s proposed rule would comply with this requirement by classifying teaching, nursing, and social work degree programs, among others, as “non-professional” degree programs and therefore ineligible for the higher borrowing limits. The proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register and open for public comment in early 2026.

Litigation Updates

SCOTUS Will Hear Birthright Citizenship Challenge

On December 5, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Trump v. Barbara, one of several cases challenging Trump’s EO purporting to eliminate birthright citizenship. A New Hampshire district court partially enjoined the EO in July, barring the Administration from enforcing the EO against children born on or after February 20, 2025.

Courts Weigh Trump’s Authority to Fire Independent Agency Leaders

On December 5, the D.C. Circuit held in a 2-1 decision that the President can remove members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board at will. The majority reasoned that these independent agencies exercise executive rather than quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial authority, and Congress therefore cannot restrict the President’s power to fire their members. On December 8th, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a third removal case, Trump v. Slaughter, which challenges Trump’s firing of a Federal Trade Commissioner. The decision in Slaughter will likely be issued by June 2026 and is expected to overturn decades-old precedent holding that the President can remove independent agency officials only for cause, and instead hold that the President has unlimited power to remove independent and quasi-independent agency officials.

SCOTUS Orders Appeals Court to Reconsider Exemptions to School Vaccine Policies

On December 8, the U.S. Supreme Court directed the Second Circuit to rehear Miller v. McDonald — a case upholding New York’s 2019 decision to eliminate religious exemptions from school vaccine mandates following a severe measles outbreak — in light of Mahmoud v. Taylor, which held that schools must allow parents to opt their children out of curricular activities and materials that conflict with their religious beliefs. The instruction suggests that the Court may be disposed to find that the First Amendment requires states to permit religious exemptions from otherwise-universal vaccine mandates.

Appeals Court Upholds Block on ED's Termination of School Mental Health Grants

On December 4, the Ninth Circuit denied ED’s motion to stay a preliminary injunction that blocks the agency from discontinuing 49 school-based mental health grants in 15 states pending the government’s appeal on the merits of the order. A Washington state district court enjoined the discontinuations in October, finding them to be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA and likely to inflict concrete, irreparable harm on the plaintiff states, students, parents, and educators.

DOJ Sues California Over In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students

On November 20, DOJ sued the state of California, claiming that its policy allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities is preempted by federal immigration laws. This is DOJ’s sixth such challenge: Texas and Oklahoma agreed in consent judgments to end their policies, while cases in Minnesota, Illinois, and Kentucky (where a third-party intervenor is defending the state’s policy) are still pending.

On November 18, the Department of Education (ED) announced six agreements to transfer core statutory responsibilities — and billions of dollars in congressional appropriations — to four other federal agencies. Although only disclosed this week, the agreements were signed and took effect on September 30th. Two of the agreements shift roughly $31 billion in programs to the Employment and Training Administration unit of the Department of Labor, including nearly all Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs (such as Title I-A aid) and many Higher Education Act programs (including HBCU, MSI, and TRIO grants). The other agreements transfer programs from ED’s Office of Indian Education (including ESEA Title VI and impact aid programs) to the Department of the Interior; move childcare access grants and foreign medical school accreditation to the Department of Health and Human Services; and shift postsecondary foreign language programs to the Department of State. For now, no functions have been transferred from the Office for Civil Rights, Federal Student Aid, or the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services.

Signing Bill to End Government Shutdown

On November 12, Trump signed into law the continuing resolution passed by the House and Senate to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. The temporary spending plan — which keeps the government open through January 30, 2026 — funds federal education programs at FY 2025 levels. It also rescinds the Administration’s mass RIFs of federal workers (including ED employees) during the shutdown, prohibits further RIFs through the end of January, and affirms the Administration’s obligation under a 2019 law to provide back pay to all federal employees. However, it remains unclear whether all ED employees RIF’d in October have received recall notices, and there are concerns that recalled employees may be placed on administrative leave and not returned to active duty.

Redirecting Higher Education Grant Funds to Trump Priorities

On November 10, the Department of Education (ED) announced a series of new “Special Projects” grants under the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) that will align with Administration priorities around promoting artificial intelligence, “foster[ing] respectful deliberation and debate” on campuses, encouraging colleges and universities to launch new accrediting agencies, and building short-term postsecondary programs. To fund this competition, ED is reallocating nearly all of the $170 million Congress appropriated to fund grants that further the statutory priorities for grantmaking under FIPSE. The decision discontinues seven such grant programs, including a scholarship program for veterans mandated by statute and grants aimed at reducing food and housing insecurity among college students.

Litigation Updates

District Court Finds Partisan Out of Office Emails Unlawful

On November 7, a D.C. district judge granted summary judgment for the American Federation of Government Employees in a case challenging ED’s addition of language to furloughed employees’ out-of-office messages blaming “Democrats” and the “Radical Left” for the government shutdown. The court found that the altered out-of-office messages violated the First Amendment, and entered a permanent injunction requiring the Trump Administration to remove “all partisan political language” from employees’ messages and prohibiting them from including such speech in any future messages.

District Court Blocks Trump’s Threats to Fine and Defund U. California System

On November 14, a California district judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump Administration from cutting grant funding or imposing fines against the University of California system over the Administration’s allegations of antisemitism and other discrimination. The unions representing UC employees brought the case after the Administration suspended research funding at UCLA and conditioned its restoration on the University agreeing to review its DEI programs, limit student anonymity during protests, and restrict transgender students’ access to bathrooms and sports teams, among other demands. The judge found that the Administration’s actions violated the First and Tenth Amendments, Title VI and Title IX, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

District Court to Decide Whether Teacher Prep Grant Terminations Were Unlawful

On November 13, a Massachusetts district judge allowed a lawsuit brought by eight states challenging ED’s termination of $65 million in teacher preparation grants to move forward. An April shadow docket decision by the U.S. Supreme Court stayed a temporary restraining order blocking the terminations, finding that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to direct ED to make payments under the grants. Relying on a more recent shadow docket order which held that district courts can hear claims challenging agency guidance that results in grant terminations but not challenges to the terminations themselves, the judge determined that the states’ claims regarding ED’s directives and actions leading to the terminations can proceed, but dismissed their claims seeking to recover under the awards.