Supreme Court cases that may impact K-12 education

ach term, the United States Supreme Court receives around 7,000-8,000 requests for case review (called “petitions for writ of certiorari”). Using the “rule of four” — by which four justices must agree a case is worth considering — approximately 80 cases are granted review. For most cases, if certiorari is not granted, that is the end of their appellate journey.

However, in some cases, the Court “relists” a case, meaning it will be considered again at the justices’ next conference. This term, the court heard two cases that may impact K-12 education, and a third case has been relisted and will be considered for certiorari at a later date. Although these cases have not yet been decided, CSBA’s Legal team is providing this update for interested local educational agencies.

Wisconsin Bell v. U.S., ex rel. Todd Heath

On Nov. 4, 2024, the justices heard oral arguments in the Wisconsin Bell case, which asks the Court to consider whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) E-Rate program are “claims” under the False Claims Act (FCA). More specifically, this case analyzes if the funds used in the E-Rate program are federal funds and therefore subject to the FCA or private funds and not subject to the FCA.

A Civil War-era statute aimed at eliminating fraud in federal programs and contracting, the FCA allows citizens to sue individuals and companies for defrauding the government. If successful, the government can pursue damages and the person who brought the suit can receive a portion. Todd Heath, the plaintiff in this case, alleged that Wisconsin Bell is defrauding the government by failing to provide discounted rates to school districts contracting for telecommunication services, which is covered by the E-Rate program.

The E-Rate program is a longstanding federal program administered by the FCC. E-Rate allows any eligible school to receive support in the form of discounted services, anywhere from 20 to 90 percent, from telecommunications vendors. The Universal Services Fund (USF), which holds contributions from telecommunications companies, compensates the vendors for the discounted amount. The program is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) and the FCC oversees the operations and compliance.

Because USAC is a private, nonprofit company, Wisconsin Bell argues that the funds used in the program are not federal funds but are actually private funds outside the scope of the FCA. The federal government argues, however, that the FCA is applicable, since the mandate for the E-Rate program comes from the federal government, which also collects and holds associated penalties and interest. Proponents of the E-Rate program hope that the Court’s ruling is not limited to finding just those penalties and interest to be federal funds, but that the entire USF is made up of federal dollars.

Two additional cases related to the E-Rate program were recently granted certiorari from the Court and will be heard in March or April of 2025. Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research and Schools, Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition v. Consumers’ Research argue that the E-Rate program is unconstitutional because it delegates power to the FCC and USAC in a way that the Constitution does not allow.

Williams v. Washington

On Oct. 7, 2024, the Court heard oral arguments in Williams v. Washington, which arose from an Alabama Supreme Court decision affirming a circuit court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s/appellant’s claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (Section 1983), in relation to unemployment compensation benefits applications. The Alabama Supreme Court determined that a claimant was required to first exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing such a claim in state court, and without exhaustion of such required remedies, the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1983 is a federal civil rights law enacted in 1874 and provides plaintiffs with a cause of action against anyone who deprives them of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” under color of state law. Plaintiffs, as applicants for unemployment compensation benefits, sued arguing that Alabama’s unemployment benefits application process violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and the Social Security Act of 1935, thereby giving rise to a Section 1983 claim. Alabama, by statute, created an unemployment compensation benefits scheme that lays out an application process and includes an administrative exhaustion requirement that governs when an aggrieved applicant may seek state court review.

At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the exhaustion of Alabama’s administrative remedies was necessary to raise Section 1983 claims in Alabama state court. Plaintiffs argued that state exhaustion requirements were pre-empted by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Citing Supreme Court precedent, plaintiffs asserted that Section 1983 has been interpreted to “foreclose the imposition of state administrative exhaustion requirements” and the same conclusion applies to a Section 1983 suit brought in federal or state court. In support of their assertion that the “no-exhaustion rule” applies in state court, plaintiffs cited Felder v. Casey, a case in which the Supreme Court considered a Wisconsin notice of claim statute and concluded that the statute was “inconsistent with federal law” as applied to “federal civil rights actions brought in state court under 42 U.S.C. §1983.” Respondents, on the other hand, argued that Alabama’s administrative exhaustion requirement is a “neutral state rule” that the state is permitted to apply to federal claims, unless the rules were pre-empted by federal law.

This case may have implications for schools in a similar way to Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, a recent decision in which the Supreme Court held that exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act did not prevent relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Parents Protecting Our Children, UA v. Eau Claire Area School District

This Wisconsin case was not heard by the Court. Instead, it was relisted for future consideration, indicating at least one justice’s interest in the question presented. Parent Protecting Our Children, UA vs. Eau Claire Area School District asks the Court to consider if parents have the right to sue when they are subject to a school district’s explicit policy that usurps parental decision-making authority over a major health-related decision and tries to hide it from them.

Parents Protecting Our Children is an unincorporated group of parents challenging district administrative guidance that provided its schools with direction and resources for transgender students and students with gender identity questions. Included within the guidance is instruction for school personnel to speak with the student before mentioning their gender status to a parent or guardian. Parents Protecting Our Children argue that this guidance violates their 14th Amendment due process rights and First Amendment free exercise rights. Because no parent in the group was directly affected by the policy, the lower courts found that the group does not have standing. The petition for writ of certiorari asks the Supreme Court to overturn those decisions and allow the case to move forward on the merits.