The U.S. Supreme Court had one of its most significant terms for K-12 education in several years, even after it decided to remand to a lower court a case it had decided to hear about transgender rights in education, Gloucester County School District v. G.G.
Here are the cases with implications for education that the court did decide:
Special Education
In a landmark decision in , the court unanimously expanded the scope of students鈥� rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The case focused on the definition of just how much鈥攐r how little鈥攕chools must do in setting up an education program for a student with a disability. The high court rejected a standard adopted by a federal appeals court that schools need only provide a 鈥渕erely more than de minimus鈥� education program. Instead, the IDEA requires an educational program 鈥渞easonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child鈥檚 circumstances.鈥� For a child in special education in a regular classroom, an individualized education program, or IEP, should be reasonably calculated 鈥渢o enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade,鈥� the court said.
In 鈥攁 case that involved a child鈥檚 use of a service dog at school鈥攖he court held that a student or family suing a school district over a disability-related issue doesn鈥檛 always have to exhaust all the procedures under the IDEA before going to court. Instead, it can go ahead when the lawsuit centers on a violation of another federal disabilities law, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, rather than on the special education law鈥檚 core guarantee of a 鈥渇ree, appropriate public education.鈥�
Religion and Public Education
In a case closely watched by school choice advocates on both sides, the court ruled 7-2 in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Mo. v. Comer that the state of Missouri violated the U.S. Constitution鈥檚 free exercise of religion clause when it denied a church a grant to use shredded scrap-tire material to improve its preschool playground. The case was always about much more than recycled tires and church playgrounds, as religious school vouchers advocates hoped the court might use it to cast aside state constitutional provisions limiting aid to religion. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote a much more narrow opinion, though a footnote aimed at limiting the decision to 鈥渆xpress discrimination based on religious identity鈥� and not 鈥渞eligious uses of funding鈥� did not attract a majority of votes. For that and other reasons, voucher proponents were heartened by the decision.
Free Speech
In , the court held that social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn deserve First Amendment protection and that a North Carolina statute that barred people on the state鈥檚 sex offender registry from accessing most commercial social networking sites ran afoul of the free-speech clause.
In Matal v. Tam, the justices reiterated that even speech that is offensive or disparaging to certain individuals and groups is protected by the First Amendment. The case stemmed from an Asian-American dance-rock band鈥檚 unsuccessful efforts to trademark its name鈥擳he Slants鈥攚hich the band intends as a way to reclaim an ethnic slur. The court held that a provision of the Lanham Act of 1947 that bars disparagement of persons was inconsistent with the free-speech clause.
Private Schools
In , the court ruled 8-0 that a retirement plan maintained by a 鈥減rincipal-purpose organization鈥� such as a religious hospital or school qualifies as a 鈥渃hurch plan鈥� under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, regardless of who established it. The decision eased fears of schools and other church entities because it rejected an interpretation of ERISA that some federal appeals courts had adopted that would have required such entities to comply with all of the retirement statute鈥檚 recordkeeping and procedural requirements.
Copyright
In a case with implications for the costs of cheerleader uniforms as well as for copyright in education more generally, the justices ruled 6-2 in that the leading provider of cheerleader uniforms could copyright some uniform designs to stave off competitors. One of those competitors had challenged the copyrights, saying the market leader鈥檚 practices drove up the prices of uniforms for schools and families. And the American Library Association had filed a brief arguing that more-expansive copyright protection would be more difficult and expensive for schools.
Presidential Appointments
In , the justices ruled that the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 bars a person who has been nominated to fill a vacant position requiring a presidential appointment and Senate confirmation from performing the duties of that office in an acting capacity. Republican and Democratic presidential administrations had been skirting the law over the past 20 years, and the court鈥檚 decision put a crimp in President Donald Trump鈥檚 personnel activities.
