Supreme Court October Term 2024 – Education Cases to Watch
Some of us measure our year in weeks, months, or, for the readers of this article, likely by the school calendar. The Supreme Court, however, has its own measurement. The Court operates, hears cases, and issues rulings each year beginning in October and ending in June of the subsequent year. Because of that, SCOTUS’s calendar is often referred to as the “October Term” or “OT” for short.
We are now solidly in the midst of SCOTUS’s OT 2024. At this point, the Court has accepted requests to review lower court decisions (those requests are called “petitions”) and is considering what further petitions it might accept during the term. In light of that, we wanted to take the opportunity to share the petitions we are watching this term that have the potential to impact schools.
This article is intended to provide a high-level overview of cases to watch, the issues they present, and the potential impact on schools. As cases are decided over the course of OT 2024, we will provide further, more detailed, alerts.
Without further ado, here are the education-related cases we are watching this term:
- J.T., By and Through Her Parents, A.T. & G.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279
Background: A student known as A.J.T., who has epilepsy, sued the Osseo Area Schools for disability discrimination, alleging her school did not provide her with evening instruction. Her epilepsy was severe in the morning, and she was therefore unable to attend school until noon. The Eighth Circuit held that the school did not act with bad faith or gross misjudgment in denying the accommodation request.
Procedural History: The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected student A.J.T.’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, noting they were constrained by their prior decision in Monahan v. Nebraska finding that plaintiff must show bad faith or gross misjudgment. A.J.T. petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari (or “cert” – meaning leave to have the Supreme Court review the case), asking the Supreme Court to resolve the split between the federal circuit courts on whether bad faith or gross misjudgment is required in cases brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act.
Issue: Whether the ADA and Rehabilitation Act require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent ‘bad faith or gross misjudgment’ standard when seeking relief for discrimination related to their education.
Potential Impact: A decision could impact the standards (and expectations) imposed on schools in offering accommodations to their students. If the Court adopts the more stringent standard imposed by the Eighth Circuit and promoted by the school district, parents in Illinois will have to meet a higher bar to obtain relief when bringing suit under Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act moving forward. Currently, the Seventh Circuit (which is controlling in Illinois), applies a less stringent standard.
- Drummond ex rel. State v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board
Background: The Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board entered into a contract with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, a religious charter school. The Attorney General for the state of Oklahoma argued that the contract violated the Oklahoma Constitution, which requires charter schools to be nonsectarian, as well as the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the states from using public money for the establishment of religious institutions.
Procedural History: The Oklahoma Supreme Court held in a 6-2 decision that establishing a religious charter school was a violation of both the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma state constitution, and other state laws that blocked public funds for secular schools.
Issue: Does the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board’s contract with a religious charter school violate the state and federal constitution?
Potential Impact: Depending on the scope of the Court’s opinion, the decision could impact a charter school’s ability to be affiliated or contract with religious organizations or schools.
- United States v. Skrmetti
Background: Tennessee enacted a law banning gender-affirming care, such as hormone treatments and gender-transition surgeries, for transgender patients under 18. The law carved out two exceptions from that general rule: (1) allowing the use of hormone treatments for other patients under 18, such as those who begin puberty too early, and (2) permitting health-care providers to continue to administer hormone therapy to patients who were already receiving it until March 31, 2024. The law also included mechanisms for enforcement, including professional discipline for healthcare providers who provide care for transgender patients under age 18.
The challengers include transgender minors, their parents, and healthcare providers who seek to bar the state from enforcing the ban on puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and gender-transition surgeries.
Procedural History: The challengers sought preliminary injunctions, asking the lower courts to grant injunctions, essentially “staying” or pausing implementation of the law. The District Court initially granted injunctions, finding that the laws likely infringed on parents’ fundamental rights to direct their children’s medical care and discriminated on the basis of sex. However, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals of the Sixth Circuit stayed these injunctions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the Tennessee law violates the Equal Protection Clause by infringing on a parents’ fundamental rights to direct their child’s upbringing or discriminating on the basis of sex. Currently, the laws are in effect pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision.
Issue: Whether the Tennessee law (Tennessee Senate Bill 1), violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Potential Impact: This decision will highlight how the Supreme Court will review state laws that single out transgender individuals and whether such laws should be subject to a higher standard of review. The decision also has the potential to weigh in on whether similar laws violate the fundamental rights of parents to make decisions about medical care for their children. This decision could have a farther reaching impact to schools relative to the scope of parental rights more broadly.
- Williams v. Washington
Background: Nancy Williams and others brought suit under Section 1983 in Alabama state court, complaining about delays in the processing of unemployment benefits. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case, holding that the Alabama “legislature has prohibited courts from exercising jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims at this stage” before the claimants had exhausted their administrative remedies.
Plaintiff asserts that Section 1983 does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies and that the Alabama court’s decision conflicts with previous Supreme Court decisions.
Issue: Whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court.
Procedural History: The Petitioners sought an injunction, and the Respondents moved to dismiss, arguing the Petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The lower court granted the motion to dismiss. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on the basis of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the exhaustion issue.
Potential Impact: Section 1983 is the main vehicle for plaintiffs to allege civil rights violations. As such, Section 1983 claims are commonly brought against school districts for alleged constitutional or civil rights violations. The Court’s holding could create a preliminary hurdle for plaintiffs to overcome prior to filing such claims against school districts in federal courts. In other words, if the Supreme Court agrees with the Defendants, plaintiffs may be required to exhaust their administrative or state court remedies before filing a Section 1983 claim in federal court. While this may result in prolonged litigation for school districts and other public bodies, it also could result in more litigation being resolved at the administrative level – the intent of the exhaustion requirement.
- Wisconsin Bell v. United States, ex rel. Todd Heath
Background: Todd Heath sued Wisconsin Bell under the False Claims Act, alleging that the company charged schools and libraries impermissibly high prices under the E-rate program, resulting in each reimbursement request being a false claim. Wisconsin Bell moved to dismiss on the ground that the alleged submissions were not actionable “claims” under the FCA because they did not involve government funds or requests to government agents.
Procedural History: The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Wisconsin Bell on the issue of whether Wisconsin Bell had submitted false claims and certifications related to the e-rate program. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that Heath identified enough evidence of discriminatory pricing for a reasonable jury to find that schools and libraries were charged more than similarly situated customers. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether reimbursement requests submitted to the FCC’s e-rate program qualify as claims under the False Claims Act.
Issue: Whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission’s E-rate program are “claims” under the False Claims Act.
Potential Impact: If determined that the E-rate program does implicate federal funding, this holding could have implications for federal funding recipients (with potential applicability to other funding programs).
- Mahmoud v. Taylor
Background: In November 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education updated its curriculum to include new, more inclusive content incorporating LGBTQIA themes. The Board of Education announced that for the 2023-2024 school year, it would not provide notice before teaching such content and it would not allow for opt-outs. However, the Board’s Guidelines provided opt-outs would be allowed from any “classroom discussions or activities that [parents or students] believe would impose a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.” Similarly, Maryland law required procedures for students to opt-out of any “instruction related to family life and human sexuality objectives.” Parents in Maryland brought a First Amendment challenge against the Superintendent of the Montgomery County Board of Education, arguing the Superintendent and Board of Education’s policy which requires teaching LGBTQIA books and did not advise parents of such teaching or allow them to opt their children out of the same violated the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.
Procedural History: The District Court denied the parents’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding the parents failed to demonstrate that the school board’s policy burdened their religious freedoms. The parents appealed and the United Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial.
Issue: Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.
Potential Impact: The Court’s decision here could have significant and potentially far-reaching implications on what form of consent and/or opt-out procedures schools districts must follow when using curriculum with LGBTQIA themes.
PENDING PETITIONS
Notably, as of the date of this alert, there is one education-related case that has petitioned SCOTUS for review, but that the Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear. Given that this case has not yet been accepted by the Court, we will be brief. Only a small percentage of cases that petition SCOTUS actually are accepted, so this case may very well never be heard by the Court, especially in light of new guidance related to Title IX and athletics. But given the potential impact of this case if heard by the Court, we want to make sure schools are aware of it and its potential impact should the Court decide to hear it:
- West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Background: This case challenges West Virginia’s 2021 law that requires schools to confirm the sex of a student at birth for purposes of the student’s participation in single-sex athletics. In short, the law prohibits students from participating on an athletic team that does not correspond to their assigned sex at birth. Plaintiff, a transgender student, argues this law violates her federal civil rights and constitutes discrimination. Specifically, the plaintiff challenged the state law under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.
Issue: Whether Title IX prevents a state from consistently designating girls’ and boys’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth? Whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from offering separate boys’ and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth?
Procedural History: The West Virginia legislature passed a law affirming that biological differences drive the distinction between boys’ and girls’ sports. B.P.J., a transgender student, challenged the law. The District Court, however, found in the State’s favor, noting that biological males have physiological advantages over biological females. B.P.J. appealed, and a divided Fourth Circuit panel held that the provisions of the law were “nefarious” and intended solely to target transgender individuals. The court held that the law violated Title IX and potentially the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Equal Protection” clause. As such, the Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court’s ruling. The State then filed for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Potential Impact: A decision could have significant implications on transgender students’ ability to participate in sports and ability of states to limit their participation in athletic activities. Notably, the 2024 Title IX regulations were vacated on January 9, 2025, (which we discuss further, here). And, recently, President Trump signed an Executive Order stating that the U.S. government only recognizes two sexes (discussed here). Based on this, it is unclear whether the issues in this case remain “ripe” such that the Supreme Court will ultimately grant certiorari. However, we will continue to monitor and keep you updated.
As the term continues, we will watch for new petitions filed with the Court and keep you updated. We will also update you as SCOTUS issues decisions on education-related cases. At the end of the term, we plan to release a comprehensive Supreme Court Year in Review document that will highlight the cases and decisions from OT 2024 that impact schools.
In the meantime, please plan to join us for a webinar on the Supreme Court term and cases we are watching. Information regarding the webinar will be coming soon. And, as always, should you have any questions, please feel free to contact the authors of this post or any other Franczek attorney.