Federal Legislation & News
in Special Education
Administration Rescinds Access to Education Services for Undocumented Children
In a sharp departure from previous federal guidelines, the Administration has announced its intention to roll back eligibility for domestic assistance programs for children and families who are undocumented. Specific to education and citing Executive Order 14218 “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders” the Department of Education (ED) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have put all states on notice that they plan to formally rescind a 1998 interpretation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) which has been used to allow states to serve undocumented children previously deemed eligible for preschool services through Head Start as well as young adult students participating in career/technical education (CTE), and adult education programs. While HHS has indicated that its new guidance will be released through the official 60-day notice and comment period, ED has requested grantees to verify participant eligibility to ensure compliance. ED also released a new “interpretive rule” that details the interplay between PRWORA and Plyler v. Doe and concludes, “Federal programs administered [by ED] that provide postsecondary education and other similar benefits, including adult education and CTE programs, are “Federal public benefits” subject to the citizenship and immigration verification requirements of PRWORA, so long as such benefits are not protected under Plyler as part of a basic public education.” With an understanding of the potential impacts on students with disabilities, COPAA is examining the new policies and is collaborating with partners to determine whether and how to weigh in with the Administration on this policy position.
Stakeholders and Congressional Democrats Demand Release of Education Funds
Last week, Democrats in Congress demanded action by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to release a hold on nearly $7 billion in K-12 and adult education funds that were due to schools on July 1. “We are shocked by the continued lack of respect for states and local schools,” a letter by Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-WA) and 32 Senate Democrats said, and also indicated that the decision will result in budget cuts in every state and is already having an immediate impact on schools and summer programs. Lawmakers also asserted that the withholding of funds violates the terms of the Fiscal Year 2025 funding law. Similarly, amid concerns about the impacts of withholding federal K-12 education funds from schools, COPAA has signed a letter alongside local, state, and national stakeholders that promotes the immediate release of funds. That letter is timed to go to the Administration later this week. As a reminder, the withholding of K-12 funds, which are authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and were appropriated dollars by Congress in March, includes these ESEA dollars: Title I-C for migrant education ($375 million), Title II-A for professional development ($2.2 billion), Title III-A for English-learner services ($890 million), Title IV-A for academic enrichment ($1.3 billion), and Title IV-B for before- and after-school programs ($1.4 billion). For clarity, federal funds that come to states under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Title I of the ESEA are not impacted and have been disbursed to states.
COPAA Tells Congress to Reject White House Proposal to Block Grant IDEA Preschool and Related Funds
In an updated letter to influence the Fiscal Year 2026 Appropriations process which funds the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and other key education programs, this week COPAA told appropriators, “…we urge you to reject the White House Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 budget proposal that recommends steep cuts to education including by eliminating specific investments in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B Preschool (ages 3-5) and Part D National Activities and other harmful cuts. Congress must continue to invest in and support all parts of IDEA as well as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).” Please join COPAA in our fight to ensure Congress supports IDEA and email Congress TODAY.
US Supreme Court clears way for Trump to gut Education Department
Reuters
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for President Donald Trump’s administration to resume dismantling the Department of Education, part of his bid to shrink the federal government’s role in education in favor of more control by the states. In the latest high court win for Trump, the justices lifted a federal judge’s order that had reinstated nearly 1,400 workers affected by mass layoffs at the department and blocked the administration from transferring key functions to other federal agencies. A legal challenge is continuing to play out in lower courts. The Supreme Court’s action came in a brief, unsigned order. Its three liberal justices dissented. A group of 21 Democratic attorneys general, school districts, and unions behind a pair of legal challenges had warned in court papers that Trump’s shutdown efforts threatened to impair the department’s ability to perform its core duties. Democracy Forward, a liberal legal group representing the school districts and unions, said the court’s action “dealt a devastating blow to this nation’s promise of public education for all children.”
School districts grapple with ‘budgetary chaos’ in wake of federal funding freeze
K-12 Dive
The U.S. Department of Education’s withholding of $6.2 billion in federal K-12 grants has local and state school systems scrambling to figure out how to make up for the budget shortages. It has also caused a swell of advocacy from families, lawmakers, educators, and others across the nation. The withheld funds for fiscal year 2025 were expected to be released by the Education Department on July 1. Programs at risk due to the funding hold include English learner services, academic supports, after-school programming, and professional development. The frozen funds represent at least 10% or more of states’ overall K-12 federal revenues if the money is not distributed, according to the nonpartisan Learning Policy Institute. At the local level, superintendents and principals are voicing concern about how the funding freeze will impact their school services, particularly those that serve English learners, homeless students, and students from low-income families.
How Trump is deploying multiple agencies to set education policy
K-12 Dive
The Trump administration is tapping agencies other than the U.S. Department of Education to implement its agenda in schools, sometimes circumventing typical rulemaking procedures that would allow districts months to give feedback on and prepare for policy changes before they roll out. The use of other agencies to set or enforce education policy marks a significant shift from typical K-12 policymaking, some education policy experts say. “This is a paradigm shift on the part of how the federal government articulates and connects some of these tools to their education priorities,” said Kenneth Wong, a professor of education policy at Brown University. “So I think going forward, we might be seeing broader use of this wider range of policy tools in the area of education policy changes.” This month, for example, a policy change from the U.S. Department of Energy could take effect that would undo some students’ protections related to sex discrimination under Title IX, disability discrimination under Section 504, and racial discrimination under Title VI.
COPAA joins Public Funds Public Schools and Urges Montana Court to Strike Down Harmful Voucher Law
Montana Quality Education Coalition et al. (MQEC) v. State of Montana et al. is a case challenging Montana’s voucher program for students with disabilities.
In 2023, the Montana Legislature established a statewide Education Savings Account (ESA) voucher program allowing families of students with disabilities to use public funds deposited into personal bank accounts for private educational expenses. The voucher program exempts participating nonpublic schools from any oversight that would ensure crucial legal protections and the availability of educational resources for students with disabilities, including the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Montana state laws.
The amicus brief explains the negative impacts of vouchers on public school funding and the ways in which Montana’s voucher program threatens the state’s constitutional duty to provide public education to all students. The brief also describes the devastating effects vouchers would have on vulnerable student populations in Montana, including rural and American Indian students who face unique challenges in educational access, from high transportation costs to a lack of necessary programs and services.
The case was brought by Montana Quality Education Coalition and Disability Rights Montana, represented by Upper Seven Law and Disability Rights Montana. PFPS’s amicus brief was filed in support of the Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion in the trial court.
Federal Class Action Lawsuit Seeking Full Days of School for Oregon Students with Disabilities Will Proceed.
COPAA celebrates the decision issued on July 7, 2025, by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in J.N. v. Oregon Department of Education, finding that the case, which had been dismissed by the United States District Court for the District of Oregon in 2024, can proceed. J.N. is a federal class action lawsuit in which several advocacy organizations—including COPAA—have sought to end the State of Oregon’s longstanding systematic failures that have led to many students with disabilities being denied the right to a full day of school. COPAA is also an organizational plaintiff.
The Oregon federal district court had dismissed the case as moot because of the passage of a state law that only partially addressed the crisis of shortened school days for many students with disabilities across Oregon. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding that neither the new state law nor the Oregon Department of Education’s own voluntary changes had mooted the Plaintiffs’ claims.
The Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the district court to address the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claims.
The plaintiffs are represented by the National Center for Youth Law, Disability Rights Oregon, COPAA, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, and McDermott Will & Emery LLP. COPAA Legal Director Selene Almazan is one of the attorneys on the case. Richard D. Salgado of McDermott Will & Emery LLP in Dallas, Texas, argued the case before the Ninth Circuit.
You can read the briefs submitted to the Ninth Circuit by the plaintiffs and amici:
Opening Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants
Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Reply Brief
Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants by the American Civil Liberties Union
HR 1 becomes law, Medicaid Cuts and Education Vouchers Timed for Late 2026
As reported in the national news, the President signed HR 1 into law on July 4th, giving Republicans the legislative win they sought to accomplish in the first half of the 119th Congress. Specific to education, HR 1 includes an amended version of the Educational Choice for Children Act—a federal voucher initiative— that will now provide a dollar-for-dollar tax credit (up to $1700 for individuals) when states opt for a scholarship program (with no protections for IDEA-eligible children). The final bill also lacks funding or time on the total annual federal subsidy toward the scholarship provision, which means it could run well into the multiple billions each year. To pay for the new provisions, the law cuts nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid, which may limit access to early intervention and school-based services, and cuts $300 billion from student loan programs, impacting Pell Grant eligibility, access to federally subsidized student loans, and more. As COPAA members know, we have been and remain extremely concerned about the impacts of HR 1 on children with disabilities and retaining access to all of the rights and opportunities eligible children and parents receive under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as well as states/districts having adequate resources to fund IDEA-services and supports.
6 Ways Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful BIll’ Will Affect Kids and Schools
ChalkBeat
“When you take it all together, it’s kind of like an assault on children and families policy-wise,” said Megan Curran, the director of policy at the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University. “We’re going to see that the effects reverberate well beyond what we’re even understanding” right now, she said, “and schools are going to be on the front lines.” The nearly 900-page bill also creates a new voucher-like program that will pay for private school scholarships — a major victory for school choice advocates who have successfully expanded similar programs in several states, but have previously failed to enact a nationwide version. States will be allowed to opt out, however, and it’s likely many Democrat-led states will.
Here is more on how what the president calls the “big, beautiful bill” is likely to affect children and schools: Trump’s policy bill makes historic cuts to Medicaid, which is the fourth-largest source of federal funding for schools. If millions of children lost their health insurance, it would undoubtedly reduce funding for schools, though it’s unclear by how much. “Cutting Medicaid is equivalent to cutting school district budgets,” said Jessie Mandle, the national program director at the nonprofit Healthy Schools Campaign. “School districts are very much aware of how important Medicaid dollars are to serve students with disabilities, address the youth mental crisis, [and] address students’ behavioral health needs.”
Who will bear the brunt of Trump’s hold on $6.8 Billion in school funds?
Ed Week
School districts, state leaders, and education experts continue to sound the alarm that the Trump administration’s hold on $6.8 billion in federal funds Congress already allocated for education will disproportionately harm students from low-income families, students with disabilities, and English learners. The Trump administration notified states last week that seven federal education programs are currently under “ongoing programmatic review” despite a July 1 disbursement date enshrined in federal law. The federal government distributes money for those programs using formulas that prioritize school districts with high concentrations of poverty. So if the administration doesn’t eventually release the $6.8 billion it withheld last week, school districts with high concentrations of students of color and students from low-income families stand to lose several times more dollars per pupil than districts with low concentrations of those student populations, according to an analysis of federal spending data for more than 9,000 districts across 46 states by the left-leaning think tank New America.
NOTE: Limited free articles, then requires a subscription
Advocates express alarm over ED’s civil rights complaint dismissals
POLITICO
The Education Department’s civil rights arm is dismissing complaints at a rapid clip, prompting concern from former officials and advocates about its function amid staffing cuts. In court documents filed last week, the department disclosed that its Office for Civil Rights dismissed 3,424 complaints between March 11 and June 27 “consistent with OCR’s Case Processing Manual.” The documents state that 96 complaints were “resolved” because of insufficient evidence during an investigation, and another 290 complaints with voluntary agreements, settlements, or technical assistance. OCR also received 4,833 complaints, opened 309 for investigation, and opened 26 directed investigations, according to a court declaration filed by department chief of staff Rachel Oglesby as part of a case that challenged the agency’s decision to conduct a sweeping reduction in force.
Federal Judge Again Blocks the Dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education
On June 18, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs in Victim Rights Law Center, et al. v. United States Department of Education, ordering that the Executive Branch Defendants cannot carry out the reduction-in-force (“RIF”) announced in March 2025 for employees of the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) and must return to duty all employees who were set to be terminated, with the goal of restoring the OCR to its previous state so it can carry out its statutory duties. OCR must continue investigating all complaints alleging violation of federal civil rights laws, including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The court explained that it is “abundantly clear that because of the RIF, OCR will likely be unable to resolve student discrimination complaints in a timely and meaningful fashion, absent an injunction.” The court noted that the plaintiff students “have already seen their investigations stall; they no longer have access to OCR’s support through investigations, enforcement actions, technical assistance and free mediation options,” and because of this, their “access to education has been significantly impeded.”
This case is related to New York v. McMahon, which was brought by several states, school districts, and educational organizations, for which the same court granted a preliminary injunction on May 22, 2025. The US Department of Justice has asked the U.S. Supreme Court for a “stay” pending their appeal to the First Circuit.
Potential Effects on Education Cases of SCOTUS’s Decision Regarding “Universal Injunctions”
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Trump v. CASA that nationwide, or “universal,” injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.” In this case, several individuals, organizations, and states sued the federal government over a January 2025 Executive Order that purported to end birthright citizenship for certain individuals born in the U.S. with parents with specified immigration statuses. Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court ruled on procedural grounds with respect to universal injunctions and did not decide the constitutionality of the president’s Executive Order; nor did the decision deny citizenship for any individuals born in the U.S. The Court’s decision partially stayed injunctions that “are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”
How might this case affect lawsuits brought by families of students with disabilities brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act?
In the vast majority of cases filed under these statutes, plaintiffs seek relief for specific students alleging specific denials of services and rights guaranteed by the IDEA, or they seek relief for disability discrimination under the ADA or Section 504. These cases do not typically involve universal injunctions. Further, plaintiffs seeking widespread relief for not just one student with a disability, but for all similarly situated students, may still file class action lawsuits and seek class-wide injunctive relief (seeking an order to require an education agency to take certain action or to prohibit an agency from taking certain action).
How might the CASA decision affect the two recent rulings by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in New York v. McMahon and Victim Rights Law Center, et al. v. United States Department of Education? In those two cases, the court granted plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunctions, prohibiting the U.S. Department of Education from carrying out the reduction-in-force it announced in March of 2025.
The plaintiffs in these suits may argue that their cases differ from Trump v. CASA, in which the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling involves injunctions that “are broader than necessary.” Arguably, with the Massachusetts cases that blocked the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education, the preliminary injunctions are not “broader than necessary,” as the announced reduction-in-force must halt in order for the Department—and specifically OCR—to carry out its statutory duties and provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.
COPAA Opposes the Marginalization of Vulnerable Students
COPAA supports the creation of inclusive learning environments that are welcoming for all students, particularly those who are at risk of being marginalized or excluded, including LGBTQ+ students. On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court in Mahmoud v. Taylor granted a preliminary injunction to parents seeking notice and opportunity to opt their children out of attendance during times when LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks are used in K-5 classrooms in Montgomery County, Maryland public schools. The Court held that the government burdened parents’ religious exercise guaranteed by the First Amendment by “requir[ing] them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.”
COPAA is concerned that last week’s ruling will lead to the increased marginalization of vulnerable children. We are committed to our continuing work to ensure that all students are included as valued members of their school communities.