How the Supreme Court Is Quietly Undermining the Promise of Public Education
Is public education—once considered the bedrock of American democracy—slowly being dismantled? Over the past decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued rulings that chip away at the foundational principles of equitable, accessible schooling. While debates about school choice and curriculum often dominate headlines, a quieter transformation is underway: a legal reinterpretation of what public education means under the Constitution. By reshaping the boundaries between church and state, weakening protections for marginalized students, and greenlighting policies that exacerbate inequality, the Court risks rendering public education itself unconstitutional in practice, if not in name.
The Historical Promise of Public Education
Public education in the U.S. has always been tied to ideals of equal opportunity and civic unity. The Supreme Court affirmed this in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), declaring segregated schools “inherently unequal” and unconstitutional. For decades, courts intervened to protect students’ rights, from desegregation orders to rulings ensuring students with disabilities could access classrooms. These decisions reinforced the idea that public schools must serve all children, regardless of race, religion, or socioeconomic status.
But recent rulings suggest a shift. Instead of strengthening public education as a constitutional obligation, the Court has increasingly treated it as a marketplace of competing interests—a perspective that privileges individualism over collective responsibility.
The Erosion of Church-State Separation
One of the most dramatic changes involves the blending of public education and religion. For years, the Court maintained a strict separation, barring public funds from supporting religious instruction. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), it established a test to prevent government policies from excessively entangling with religion.
But recent decisions have dismantled this framework. In Carson v. Makin (2022), the Court ruled that Maine could not exclude religious schools from a tuition assistance program for rural students. The majority argued that denying funding to faith-based institutions amounted to discrimination against religion. Critics, however, warned that the decision effectively forces taxpayers to subsidize religious education, undermining the neutrality of public systems.
This trend continued in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), where the Court sided with a football coach who led postgame prayers with students. By framing prayer as private speech rather than government endorsement, the ruling blurred the line between personal faith and school-sponsored religion. Such decisions risk alienating nonreligious families and those of minority faiths, turning public schools into spaces where dominant religious practices hold sway.
Starving Public Schools to Fuel Privatization
Funding disparities have long plagued American education, but the Court has declined to address systemic inequities. In San Antonio v. Rodriguez (1973), it ruled that education is not a fundamental right under the Constitution, allowing states to fund schools through property taxes—a system that perpetuates wealth-based inequality. Today, schools in low-income districts often lack basic resources, while affluent communities enjoy cutting-edge facilities.
Meanwhile, the Court has endorsed policies that divert public funds to private alternatives. By upholding voucher programs and tax credits for private school tuition, it has enabled a transfer of resources away from already struggling public schools. In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), the Court struck down a state ban on using public scholarships at religious schools, further eroding the firewall between public education and private religious institutions.
These decisions don’t just defund public schools—they normalize the idea that the state has no duty to maintain a robust, equitable system. When families are encouraged to “opt out,” the social contract behind public education weakens.
Silencing Marginalized Voices in the Classroom
The Court’s influence extends beyond funding. By refusing to intervene in cases involving censorship and discrimination, it has allowed states to restrict what students learn about race, gender, and history. While not directly a Supreme Court issue, the recent surge in state laws banning “critical race theory” or LGBTQ+-inclusive curricula reflects a broader judicial tolerance for ideological control over classrooms.
For example, the Court’s silence on Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law—which limits discussions of sexual orientation in schools—signals a reluctance to protect students’ right to inclusive learning environments. Similarly, its 2023 decision to strike down affirmative action in college admissions (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard) ignored the role of race in shaping K–12 opportunities, further entrenching inequities.
The Constitutional Crisis No One’s Talking About
So, is public education itself becoming unconstitutional? Not explicitly—but the Court’s decisions are creating a system where equal access to quality schooling exists only in theory. By privileging private and religious interests, tolerating resource gaps, and enabling classroom censorship, the justices are redefining education as a commodity rather than a right.
This shift has dire consequences. Students in underfunded districts—disproportionately Black, Latino, and low-income—face overcrowded classrooms, outdated materials, and fewer advanced courses. Religious minorities and LGBTQ+ youth may feel unwelcome in schools that increasingly reflect majoritarian values. And as families with means exit public systems, the shared investment in their success dwindles.
Reclaiming the Vision of Public Education
The solution lies in reasserting education’s role as a public good. Advocates argue for federal protections to ensure equitable funding, enforce desegregation, and safeguard inclusive curricula. States could revise tax structures to reduce reliance on local property taxes, while communities might resist voucher programs that drain resources from neighborhood schools.
Most importantly, Americans must recognize that the Supreme Court’s current trajectory isn’t inevitable. Legal challenges, grassroots organizing, and policy reforms can push back against the Court’s narrow interpretation of educational rights. The fight to preserve public education isn’t just about schools—it’s about democracy itself.
As Justice Thurgood Marshall once wrote, “Education is the very foundation of good citizenship.” If the Court continues to undermine that foundation, it won’t just rewrite constitutional law. It will betray generations of students who depend on schools to open doors—not close them.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » How the Supreme Court Is Quietly Undermining the Promise of Public Education