Trump’s Emergency Supreme Court Bid to Dismantle Federal Education Authority
Former President Donald Trump has once again thrust education policy into the national spotlight, filing an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court that seeks to dismantle major functions of the federal Department of Education. The move, described by legal experts as unprecedented in its scope, marks the latest escalation in a decades-long conservative push to limit Washington’s role in shaping America’s schools.
The legal filing, submitted on September 12, argues that the Department of Education—established in 1979—operates outside the bounds of constitutional authority. Trump’s legal team claims that federal oversight of K-12 and higher education infringes on states’ rights, a recurring theme in his political rhetoric. The appeal specifically targets programs related to student loans, civil rights enforcement, and federal funding tied to curriculum standards. If successful, the case could strip the department of its regulatory power, effectively returning control over education policy to state governments.
Why Target the Education Department?
The Department of Education has long been a lightning rod for conservative criticism. Critics argue that it centralizes decision-making, imposes burdensome regulations, and fosters bureaucratic bloat. During his 2016 campaign, Trump vowed to “cut the Department of Education way down” or eliminate it entirely, framing the issue as a battle against federal overreach. While his administration made incremental changes—such as relaxing Obama-era guidelines on campus sexual assault and school discipline—efforts to defund the department were repeatedly blocked by Congress and courts.
Now, out of office but eyeing a potential 2024 run, Trump is testing a more aggressive strategy: using the judicial system to bypass legislative gridlock. His emergency petition leans heavily on the “major questions doctrine,” a legal theory gaining traction among conservative jurists. This principle holds that agencies like the Education Department cannot create sweeping policies without explicit congressional authorization. The Supreme Court recently invoked this doctrine in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), which limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions. Trump’s lawyers appear to be betting that the same logic could apply to education.
Opposition and Legal Hurdles
The Biden administration has fiercely opposed the move, calling it a “politically motivated assault” on public education. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued in a response brief that dismantling the department would cause “chaos” for schools and students, disrupting everything from Pell Grants to anti-discrimination protections. Advocacy groups, including the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have also condemned the effort, warning that marginalized students would bear the brunt of reduced federal oversight.
Legal scholars are divided on the petition’s viability. While the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has shown willingness to curb federal agency power, the Education Department’s existence is rooted in statutes passed by Congress. “This isn’t just about rolling back regulations,” says Harvard Law professor Mark Tushnet. “Trump is asking the Court to invalidate an entire executive branch agency—something that would require overturning decades of settled law.” Others note that the Court typically avoids “emergency” rulings on broad structural questions, preferring to wait for lower courts to fully vet cases.
A Broader Conservative Vision
The lawsuit reflects a deeper ideological battle over the purpose of public education. Conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and Americans for Prosperity have long advocated for policies that promote school choice, local control, and parental rights—priorities that align with Trump’s push to defund federal programs. Supporters argue that states are better equipped to address community needs. “Why should a bureaucrat in D.C. decide how schools in Iowa or Florida teach reading or math?” said Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, in a recent interview.
Critics, however, see a more cynical agenda. They point to past efforts by Republican-led states to limit discussions of race, gender, and climate change in classrooms—policies that could flourish without federal accountability. “This isn’t just about states’ rights; it’s about eroding protections for vulnerable students,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. “When you remove the federal backstop, disparities in funding and resources get worse.”
Historical Context and Precedent
The Education Department’s origins trace back to the Cold War era, when concerns about global competitiveness led to increased federal investment in schools. Over time, its role expanded to enforce civil rights laws like Title IX (prohibiting sex-based discrimination) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). While previous Republican administrations sought to shrink the department—Ronald Reagan famously pledged to abolish it during his 1980 campaign—none have pursued a judicial strategy as sweeping as Trump’s.
The Supreme Court’s response could hinge on how narrowly it interprets Congress’s power to delegate authority. In Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), the Court established that judges should generally defer to agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws. But with the conservative majority increasingly skeptical of Chevron deference, Trump’s team may find a sympathetic audience. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, has previously criticized what he calls “the administrative state’s accumulation of power.”
Potential Consequences
If the Court sides with Trump, the implications would be seismic. States could lose billions in federal education funding tied to compliance with federal rules. Programs like free and reduced-price lunches, special education services, and grants for low-income colleges might face sudden uncertainty. Student loan borrowers, already reeling from the battle over debt cancellation, could see repayment systems fragmented across state lines.
Moreover, the case could set a precedent for targeting other agencies. “Once you open the door to dismantling the Education Department, what stops similar challenges to the EPA, OSHA, or the FDA?” asks University of Chicago law professor Emily Buss. “This isn’t just about education; it’s about whether we want a functional federal government.”
What’s Next?
The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will hear the case. Legal analysts suggest the justices might delay a decision until after the 2024 election, avoiding a political firestorm during campaign season. However, Trump’s emergency request—framed as needing immediate relief from “irreparable harm” caused by federal policies—could force the Court to act sooner.
For now, educators and policymakers are left grappling with uncertainty. “Schools are already struggling with teacher shortages and pandemic recovery,” said Denise Forte, CEO of the Education Trust. “The last thing they need is a legal bombshell that upends how they operate.”
As the nation awaits the Court’s next move, one thing is clear: The fight over who controls America’s classrooms—Washington or the states—is far from over. And with education emerging as a central issue in the 2024 race, this legal battle may shape not only schools but the future of U.S. governance itself.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » Trump’s Emergency Supreme Court Bid to Dismantle Federal Education Authority