Potentially Monumental Supreme Court Docket in 2025 for Schools
The Supreme Court of the United States could have a 2025 term which has great significance to school districts. While the Court has not yet fully determined its docket for this term, the cases it has decided hear, along with the cases which it could decide to hear, make for an interesting and potentially monumental year for school law.
First, there are some notable cases that SCOTUS will hear in coming months which will certainly impact schools, including Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research, 109 F.4th 743, en banc (5th Cir., July 24, 2024), and Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 87 F.4th 822 (6th Cir. 2023). In the FCC case, the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the E-Rate program, which many school districts rely on for significant funding for broadband and wifi. The challengers to E-Rate argue that program violates the non-delegation doctrine, which has not been used by the Supreme Court to strike down a federal statute for nearly 100 years: the Court has not found Congress exceeded its constitutional authority to legislate since challenges to New Deal programs in the 1930s. The case could open a new avenue for attacks on administrative power, building on last term’s blockbuster decisions including Loper Bright, which overturned Chevron deference. The nondelegation doctrine comes from Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides that legislative authority is vested in Congress. Those challenging statutes under the doctrine argue that the Constitution assigned the legislative power to Congress and lawmakers cannot delegate that authority to another agency. A variation of the argument, known as the private nondelegation doctrine, would restrict the government’s ability to hand off responsibilities to private individuals or companies. Both “public” and “private” nondelegation are being argued here. Argument is expected in the late spring, with a decision in June or July 2025.
In Ames v. Ohio, the Court will hear a challenge to the dismissal of a “reverse discrimination” claim. Ames, a straight woman, sued Ohio Department of Youth Services for being passed over for a promotion and demoted, with both jobs going to gay employees. The issue for SCOTUS is whether a majority group member is required to meet a higher burden (i.e., show additional “background circumstances”) to assert a Title VII claim for employment discrimination (for example: that LGBTQ+ supervisors made the employment decision affecting plaintiff; statistical evidence showing pattern of discrimination against members of the majority; etc.). The District Court granted summary judgment to Ohio, and the 6th Circuit affirmed. Oral argument is scheduled for February 26, 2025, with a decision expected next summer.
In addition to these and other cases which we already know will be decided by SCOTUS in 2025, there are a number of key school-related cases which the justices are still weighing whether to hear. If they take some or most of these cases, it could truly be a monumental year for school law:
U.S. Dept. of Educ. v. Louisiana; Cardona v. Tennessee: Challenges to the 2024 Title IX regulations.
Mahmoud v. Taylor: A challenge to a board’s policy not permitting parental opt-out to LGBTQ+ themed books in the curriculum on religious grounds.
West Virginia v. B.P.J.:A challenge to the state’s law prohibiting transgender athletes from participating in athletics consistent with their gender identity.
Parents Protecting Our Children, UA v. Eau Claire Area School District: A challenge to a school policy accommodating transgender students without parental agreement.
Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence Corp. v. Sch. Committee for the City of Boston: A challenge to a school district’s competitive admission program that is race-neutral, but which has a race-based impact.
Drummond ex rel. State v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board: A challenge to the Constitutionality of exclusion of a Catholic school from a state’s charter school program, alleging both Establishment Clause issues and Free Exercise issues.
A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools: A challenge to the standard for damages under Section 504 and the ADA for disability discrimination claims.