Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Nebraska made it illegal to teach modern foreign languages to young children. A teacher (Meyer) was convicted for teaching German. The Supreme Court struck down the law, holding that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects a broad “liberty” interest, including parents’ right to direct their children’s education and teachers’ right to teach.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Oregon passed a law requiring all children to attend public schools, effectively banning private and parochial schools. The Society of Sisters, which ran Catholic schools, challenged the law. The Supreme Court struck it down, ruling that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects parents’ right to direct their children’s education and to choose private or religious schools.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Black families in several states challenged segregated public schools. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that “separate but equal” is inherently unequal, striking down racial segregation in public education under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

3) Why It Mattered
This case overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) in the context of public education and became the foundation of the modern civil rights movement. It signaled that state-enforced segregation was unconstitutional.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (42 U.S.C. § 2000a et seq.)

2) Why It Was Done
The Act was passed to end segregation in public places and ban employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It was a response to the Civil Rights Movement and entrenched systemic discrimination.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
While the 14th Amendment and earlier Civil Rights Acts (1866, 1875) provided some protections, enforcement was weak and inconsistent. The 1964 Act gave federal government direct authority to enforce civil rights.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, 1965)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.)

2) Why It Was Done
ESEA was a cornerstone of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” It aimed to close achievement gaps by providing federal funding to primary and secondary education, particularly for disadvantaged students.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Education was historically left to states. The Constitution does not explicitly grant federal authority over schools. ESEA marked the first major federal role in K–12 education.

Head Start Act (1965)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (42 U.S.C. § 9831 et seq.)

2) Why It Was Done
Created during President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty, the Head Start Act established the Head Start program to promote school readiness for children from low-income families through early education, nutrition, health, and parental involvement.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Before this, federal involvement in early childhood education was minimal. Head Start represented a new model of comprehensive family services, not just classroom instruction.

Higher Education Act (HEA, 1965)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (20 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.)

2) Why It Was Done
The HEA was enacted as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” to strengthen U.S. colleges and universities and provide financial aid to make higher education more accessible.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Before HEA, there was no comprehensive federal framework for student aid. Federal education involvement was limited to land-grant colleges (Morrill Acts) and GI Bill benefits.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
A group of students in Des Moines, Iowa, wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. School officials suspended them. The Supreme Court ruled that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The suspensions violated the First Amendment.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Wisconsin required children to attend school until age 16. Amish parents objected, arguing that sending their children to high school conflicted with their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor, holding that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, combined with parental rights, allowed Amish parents to withdraw their children after the 8th grade.

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (1974)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (20 U.S.C. § 1232g)

2) Why It Was Done
FERPA was enacted to protect the privacy of student education records and to give parents (and later students themselves) rights to access and control disclosure of those records.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Before FERPA, student record privacy was handled inconsistently at the state and local levels. FERPA established nationwide standards for privacy in federally funded schools.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Allan Bakke, a white applicant, challenged the University of California Medical School’s admissions program, which reserved seats for minority applicants. The Supreme Court struck down strict racial quotas as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause but upheld the use of race as one factor among many in admissions.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (1990, amended 2004)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.)

2) Why It Was Done
Congress enacted IDEA to ensure children with disabilities have the right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) tailored to their needs, with access to special education and related services.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
IDEA replaced the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Court rulings like PARC v. Pennsylvania (1971) and Mills v. Board of Education (1972) had already established constitutional rights to equal educational opportunities for children with disabilities.

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (2015)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.)

2) Why It Was Done
ESSA replaced the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) to reduce federal micromanagement of schools while maintaining accountability. It aimed to give states more flexibility in setting standards and measuring student success.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) established federal aid to schools. NCLB (2001) added strict federal testing/accountability requirements. ESSA rebalanced federal and state roles.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Students for Fair Admissions challenged the admissions policies of Harvard and the University of North Carolina, arguing that their consideration of race violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that race-conscious admissions programs at both schools were unconstitutional.

3) Why It Mattered
This decision effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions, overturning decades of precedent (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003) that had allowed limited consideration of race to promote diversity.

Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Parents in Maryland objected to their children being required to read LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks without an opt-out option. The Supreme Court granted a preliminary injunction against the school district, allowing the parents relief while the case proceeds, finding they were likely to succeed on their Free Exercise Clause claim.

3) Why It Mattered
This decision highlighted growing tensions between parental rights, religious freedom, and public school curricula. It signals stronger protection for parents seeking to opt out of content that conflicts with their religious beliefs.