Federal Legislation & News
in Special Education
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.
Senate Passes Big Beautiful Bill Act Despite Harms to Children with Disabilities
Today, after a weekend-long marathon and by a vote of 51-50, the U.S. Senate passed H.R. 1, the Big Beautiful Bill (BBB), which incorporates key tax credit extensions for businesses and other changes to federal spending that impact health care, immigration, education, and more. To meet the President’s goal of signing BBB into law by the 4th of July, the House is expected to reconvene this Wednesday and vote on the Senate’s bill. COPAA continues to oppose HR 1 because it includes more than $800 billion in cuts to Medicaid and $350 million in cuts to Pell Grants/student loans, while at the same time proposing unlimited funds for a federally subsidized school voucher mechanism that will not provide protections under the IDEA. Together, the cuts to Medicaid, Pell/loans, and the unprecedented federal voucher provision will harm students with disabilities and their families. Please EMAIL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TODAY and URGE a ‘NO’ vote on HR 1.
ED to States: School Choice Options Available to Certain Students
In a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) to Chief State School Officers on June 26th, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) highlighted key parts of Title I of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) which requires states and districts to give parent some flexibility in choosing their child’s education when a student is attending a “lowest performing school” as defined and determined by the state’s accountability plan under ESEA. The DCL reminds states and districts that they must identify schools for support and improvement due to low performance, such as those with a comprehensive support and improvement (CSI) designation, those designated as targeted support and improvement due to consistently underperforming subgroups (TSI), and additional targeted support and improvement (ATSI). COPAA is monitoring ED’s guidance and communication with states regarding school choice to ensure that no federal ESEA [or IDEA funds] are used in ways not allowed or otherwise authorized by Congress under these and other laws.
ED to States: ESEA Funds for School Year 2025-2026 On Hold
In a blow to state and local school budgets, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has sent an unsigned email to states announcing that certain funding for the school year 2025-2026 will not be issued on July 1. ED noted that “Decisions have not been made concerning submissions and awards for this upcoming academic year,” and specified that four programs -authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and funded by Congress via Fiscal Year 2025 appropriations- will not be funded. The programs are 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). While this hold on ESEA funds does not directly impact access to funds to provide special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), it does impact every district’s ability to hire trained personnel, provide professional learning to educators and specialized support personnel, and give services to qualifying students with disabilities who also qualify as English Learners and/or migrant students, and more. COPAA and partners do not agree with ED’s withholding any K-12 funds appropriated by Congress and have urged Secretary McMahon to issue all Fiscal Year 2025 funds to states and districts as part of the comments submitted to ED in June. The Learning Policy Institute has provided a state-by-state look at the impact of ED’s decision to withhold ESEA funds.
Senate HELP Committee Advances Top Ed Nominees
Last week, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee voted along party lines, 12-11, to advance several nominees for key leadership positions at the U.S. Department of Education (ED), the Department of Labor, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Among the ED nominees are Penny Schwinn, nominated for Deputy Secretary of Education, and Kimberly Richey, nominated for Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. Schwinn, a former educator, has held senior education roles in Tennessee, Texas, and Delaware. Richey brings a legal background and has served in leadership positions within the state education departments of Oklahoma, Virginia, and Florida. She also previously served as Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights during the Trump Administration’s first term. The nominations now move to the full Senate for a final vote, with the date yet to be scheduled.
How would Trump’s FY 26 budget plan reshape special education?
K-12 Dive
A White House plan to consolidate pockets of special education funding in fiscal year 2026 has critics concerned that vital programs will be cut or loosely absorbed into remaining special education allocations. Supporters, however, see the budget restructure not just as an opportunity to maintain spending levels for federal special education grants, but to simplify and effectively distribute the money that educates and supports the nation’s 8.4 million infants, toddlers, children, and young adults with disabilities. Overall, the FY 26 budget proposal that was released in stages in April and May provides level funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act at $15.5 billion. However, the Trump administration said it wants to consolidate some grants that serve different purposes so states and districts have more spending flexibility. Those opposed to the plan say this design would remove guaranteed funding for certain programs because it would be each state’s decision to fund those. Specifically, the budget plan would consolidate the smaller IDEA, Part B preschool grants to states and IDEA, Part D funding for technical assistance and teacher preparation into the larger Part B, school-age program.
OPINION: NAEP data is critical for students with disabilities. It must not disappear
The 74
In February, NCLD was alarmed to learn that the National Center for Education Statistics, the primary agency responsible for administering NAEP, had been reduced to a staff of three. Both administering the test and disaggregating and reporting the resulting data are critical work requiring expertise and staffing that are now at a skeletal level. Though Education Secretary Linda McMahon has stated that NAEP is safe and will be given as planned in 2026, we have many questions and concerns about its future and the ability of researchers in the field — disability advocates in particular — to use the data as we do now. The president’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2026 proposes a 29% cut to funding for NAEP, which only adds to our concerns about the test’s administration next year.