The U.S. Supreme Court's explosive decision last month to overturn the Chevron doctrine — a 40-year-old precedent that gave federal agencies wide powers to interpret and apply statutes — is likely to bring sweeping consequences for the U.S. Department of Education and K-12 schools.
Rather than defer to the Education Department and other federal agencies' interpretation of laws, as has been customary since 1984, courts will now rely on their own interpretations of the laws in question.
"Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion on June 28 in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. "Courts do."
The decision is expected to put the Education Department's regulations and interpretations under scrutiny and subject them to change.
"In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue — no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden — involving the meaning of regulatory law," wrote Associate Justice Elena Kagan in her dissenting opinion.
Here's what the overturning of this landmark decision means for K-12.
What kind of impact will this have?
In the few days since the Supreme Court's 6-3 reversal of the 1984 Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council ruling, Congress has already put recent Education Department moves under a microscope. In particular, lawmakers are looking at the agency's decision to include LGBTQI+ students in Title IX protections and to make it more challenging for charter schools to access federal funding.
In a letter sent last week to U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, called the high court's ruling "an opportunity for executive agencies to re-examine their role relative to Congress, and to return legislating to the people’s elected representatives."
"Despite the Court’s decision, given your agency’s track record, I am concerned about whether and how the Department will adapt to and faithfully implement both the letter and spirit of this decision," Cassidy wrote. "The Department has flagrantly and repeatedly violated the law."
The department received Cassidy's letter and "is reviewing it," according to a spokesperson.
In the meantime, experts are confident the decision will impact how K-12 is regulated at the federal level.
"It will now be easier and more common for federal courts to set aside regulatory decisions made by the federal Department of Education," said Aaron Saiger, a law professor at Fordham Law School, in an email. "Over time, the Department will become more and more constrained by judicial precedent in establishing its regulatory approaches, and less able to change policy to reflect the politics of the sitting President."
What kinds of policies could be affected?
In April, the department released its final Title IX rule and added LGBTQI+ protections to regulations governing the 1972 law preventing sex discrimination in education programs. Conservative states quickly sued, claiming that the department overstepped its authority in crafting the rule — and some federal judges have agreed, temporarily blocking the rule's Aug. 1 effective date in 14 states.
"The [recent] decision by the Supreme Court basically bolsters those arguments where they're saying the Department of Education went too far," said Emma Redden, a lawyer at Baker Donelson with expertise in drafting Title IX policies. "So it'll impact educational institutions — including K-12 — in determining whether they need to implement the new Title IX regulations."
This means that Title IX policies could now vary according to federal court jurisdiction.
Another potential area ripe for questioning regulatory deference to the Education Department is special education.
In interpreting the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the main statute requiring schools to identify and serve students with disabilities, the department's regulations explain the complex law and how schools, districts and states should carry out its intent.
For instance, the law says schools must educate students with disabilities alongside students without disabilities to the maximum extent possible — known as the "least restrictive environment." The regulations then clarify that unless a student's individualized education program says otherwise, a student should be enrolled in a school they would attend if they didn't have disabilities.
Noting the complexity of the law, Myrna Mandlawitz, a policy and legislative consultant for the Council of Administrators of Special Education, said the Chevron doctrine gave deference to experts with specific knowledge of special education practices. Now the day-to-day interpretation of IDEA could fall to judges who lack the expertise needed to provide equitable interpretations, she said.
"When you don't defer to the agency, you tip the balance of power in favor of the judiciary over the executive branch," Mandlawitz said.
It's also possible that courts will no longer defer to the department on other policies as well. "I think this decision basically affects anything an executive branch agency like the Department of Education is responsible for," said Redden.
Should districts still adhere to the department's policies?
Law and policy experts agree that while overturning the Chevron doctrine complicates the department's regulatory power, states and districts are still required to follow federal regulations — unless they are set aside by a court, overturned by Congress, or repealed by the department.
States may be able to help state or local education agencies "by promulgating clearer guidance, but legal obligations continue to flow from the federal Department," said Saiger.
Redden agreed.
"I would still think that if you are subject to federal law, you need to do whatever you can to comply with it, unless you are otherwise prohibited," said Redden. "So I don't think that this gives schools a green light to ignore what the Department of Education is saying right now."
How soon of an impact?
Experts foresee change on the horizon. However, the timeline and degree of that change is unclear.
"I don't just think anything like this happens overnight, but the potential for change is pretty big," said Mandlawitz.
Whether that change creates stability or instability for districts is also up in the air — and may even vary over time.
For Title IX specifically, it's possible this decision creates instability in the short term but more stability in the long term, according to Redden.
"I think in the interim, there's going to be less stability, because obviously there's pending litigation," she said. But, in the long term, "we'll have more concrete regulations that'll pass muster under any court's review of them, regardless of the political administration in office."
Saiger said he foresees change in overall policymaking.
"It is hard to predict what will happen next, beyond that there will be a great deal of movement," said Saiger. "Over time, one should expect court decisions to constrain the Department, making 'ping-ponging' more difficult."
However, he said, the new situation will still lead to inconsistencies, but this time through legal decisions by courts in different jurisdictions. In the end, Saiger said, that could mean an inconsistent impact on how states regulate education.
Kara Arundel contributed to this story.
Dive Awards
