How Chevron’s ruling could impact K-12 policy

The U.S. Supreme Court’s sweeping decision last month to overturn the Chevron Doctrine — a 40-year-old precedent that gave federal agencies broad authority to interpret and apply laws — will likely have far-reaching implications for the U.S. Department of Education and K-12 schools.

Rather than deferring to the interpretation of the law by the Department of Education and other federal agencies, as has been the case since 1984, courts will now rely on their own interpretation of the challenged provisions.

“Perhaps most fundamentally, the Chevron presumption is flawed because the agencies have no special authority to resolve statutory ambiguities,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the June 28 majority opinion in the case. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. “The courts do.”

The decision is expected to subject Department of Education regulations and interpretations to close scrutiny and allow for changes.

“In one fell swoop, the majority today arrogates to itself exclusive authority over every open question — no matter how expert-based or policy-laden — involving the meaning of regulatory law,” wrote Associate Justice Elena Kagan in her dissenting opinion.

Here’s what the repeal of this landmark decision means for K-12 schools.

What impact will this have?

Within days of the Supreme Court overturning the 1984 ruling by a 6-3 majority, Chevron vs. Natural Resources Defense Council ruling, Congress has already put the Education Department’s recent moves under the microscope. In particular, lawmakers are looking at the agency’s decision to include LGBTQI+ students in Title IX protections and to make it harder for charter schools to access federal funding.

IN letter sent last week to U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., a ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, called the Supreme Court ruling “an opportunity for executive agencies to reexamine their role vis-à-vis Congress and return legislation to the elected representatives of the people.”

“Despite the Court’s decision, given your agency’s history, I am concerned about whether and how the Department will comply and faithfully implement both the letter and the spirit of this decision,” Cassidy wrote. “The Department has flagrantly and repeatedly violated the law.”

The department has received Cassidy’s letter and is “looking into it,” according to a spokesperson.

Meanwhile, experts believe the decision will impact how K-12 education is regulated at the federal level.

“It will now be easier and more common for federal courts to reject regulatory decisions issued by the federal Department of Education,” Aaron Saiger, a law professor at Fordham Law School, said in an email. “Over time, the Department will become increasingly constrained by court precedent in determining its regulatory approaches and will be less able to change policy to reflect the policies of a sitting president.”

What types of policies could be affected by this change?

In April, the department released the final Title IX regulations and added LGBTQI+ protections to the 1972 law that prevents sex discrimination in education programs. Conservative states quickly sued, saying the department overstepped its authority in creating the rule — and some federal judges agreed, temporarily blocking the rule’s Aug. 1 effective date 14 states.

“The (recent) Supreme Court decision fundamentally strengthens the argument that the Department of Education has gone too far,” said Emma Redden, a Title IX attorney at Baker Donelson. “So it will impact educational institutions — including K-12 — as they determine whether they must implement the new Title IX rules.”

This means Title IX rules can now vary depending on the federal court’s jurisdiction.

Another potential area where the regulations could be challenged respect the Department of Education is responsible for special education.

In interpreting the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the primary law requiring schools to identify and provide services to students with disabilities, the department’s regulations clarify the complexities of the law and how schools, districts and states should carry out its intent.

For example, the law states that schools must educate students with disabilities alongside students without disabilities to the maximum extent possible—known as the “least restrictive environment.” The law then clarifies that unless a student’s individualized education program provides otherwise, the student should be enrolled in the school they would attend if they did not have a disability.

Noting the law’s complexity, Myrna Mandlawitz, a policy and legislative consultant at the Council of Administrators of Special Education, said the Chevron doctrine honors experts with detailed knowledge of special education practices. Now, day-to-day interpretation of IDEA can fall to judges who lack the expertise needed to provide fair interpretations, she said.

“When you disobey an agency, you tip the balance of power in favor of the judiciary over the executive,” Mandlawitz said.

It’s also possible that courts will no longer defer to department policy in other matters. “I think this decision is fundamentally about anything that an executive branch agency like the Department of Education is responsible for,” Redden said.

Should districts continue to follow department policy?

Law and policy experts agree that overturning the Chevron doctrine complicates the department’s regulatory authority, but states and counties still must follow federal regulations — unless they are overturned by a court, repealed by Congress or repealed by the department.

States can help state and local education agencies “by promulgating clearer guidance, but the legal obligations still fall to the federal department,” Saiger said.

Redden agreed.

“I still think if you’re subject to federal law, you have to do everything you can to comply with it unless you’re prohibited from doing otherwise,” Redden said. “So I don’t think that gives schools the green light to ignore what the Department of Education is saying now.”

How soon will impact occur?

Experts predict changes on the horizon. But the timing and extent of those changes are unclear.

“I don’t think something like this will happen overnight, but the potential for change is really big,” Mandlawitz said.

It is also unclear whether this change will bring stability or instability to neighborhoods — and that may change over time.

Particularly in the case of Title IX, Redden said, the decision could create instability in the short term but greater stability in the long term.

“I think there will be less stability in the meantime because of course there are lawsuits going on,” she said. But in the long term, “we will have more concrete legislation that will pass muster with any court, regardless of the political administration.”

Saiger said he anticipates changes in overall policymaking.

“It’s hard to predict what will happen next, and there will be a lot of changes,” Saiger said. “Over time, you can expect court decisions to constrain the department, making it harder to ‘ping-pong.’”

However, he said, the new situation will still lead to inconsistencies, but this time through legal decisions by courts in different jurisdictions. Ultimately, Saiger said, it could mean an inconsistent impact on how states regulate education.

Kara Arundel contributed to this article.