Mahmoud v. Taylor, 24-297 , June 2025
The U.S. Supreme Court found that the parents met the requirements for injunctive relief and ruled that the policy did not withstand strict scrutiny. The case involved a Maryland school board that allowed LGBTQ-themed storybooks without providing notice or opt-out options for parents. The Court rejected the Fourth Circuit's claim that the record was too limited to demonstrate a burden on the parents' religious exercise. It ordered the lower courts to ensure the school board notifies parents whenever one of the contested books is used and allows opt-outs until the litigation is resolved. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion of the 6–3 decision.

A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, 24-249 , June 2025
The U.S. Supreme Court held that students with disabilities do not need to prove "bad faith or gross misjudgment" to bring claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act when seeking damages related to educational services. A.J.T., a student with epilepsy, was denied evening instruction by her school district despite medical necessity. While lower courts dismissed her ADA and Section 504 claims using a heightened intent standard, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the correct standard is “deliberate indifference,” the same used in other disability discrimination contexts. The Court rejected the Eighth Circuit’s more demanding approach and remanded the case, affirming that students with disabilities are entitled to equal protection under consistent legal standards.

Lindke v. Freed, 22-611 , March 2024
James Freed, a city manager, maintained a Facebook page containing professional information. When Kevin Lindke criticized the city on this page, Freed blocked his comments, leading Lindke to sue, alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights. Lindke argued that the page was a public forum and accused Freed of viewpoint discrimination by deleting unfavorable comments. The federal district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Freed's favor. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that a public official's social media account constitutes state action under Section 1983 only if the official has the authority to speak on behalf of the State and exercises that authority on social media. As Freed's posts were made in his personal capacity, the Court concluded that he had the right to control the content and block users. However, because the Sixth Circuit used a different standard, the case was remanded for a determination on Freed's authority to speak on behalf of the city when using social media. 

O’Connor- Ratcliff v. Garnier, 22-324 , March 2024
Following their election to the local school board, two individuals utilized Facebook pages initially created for their campaigns to disseminate school-related information. They identified themselves as government officials on these pages and engaged with patrons of the school district, soliciting feedback and communication. However, when they blocked a patron from commenting, citing concerns about disruptive behavior, the patron sued, alleging a violation of First Amendment rights. The Court, considering the precedent set in the Lindke v. Freed case, determined that the social media actions of public officials constitute state action only if they exercise authority on behalf of the state. As the case lacked clarity regarding the officials' capacity in blocking the patron, the Court remanded for further consideration in accordance with the Lindke standard. This case underscores the evolving legal landscape regarding public officials' use of social media platforms and their obligations under the First Amendment. 

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 20-255 , June 2021
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a school district violated a student's First Amendment rights when it suspended her from the cheerleading squad for Snapchat posts that were critical of the school, one of which contained vulgar language and gestures. The posts were made outside of school hours, from a location off school grounds, using the student's personal cell phone, and to an audience consisting of her private circle of Snapchat friends. ​

A.C. v. M.S.D. of Martinsville, B.E. and S.E. v. Vigo County School Corp., 22-1786 & 22-2318 , August 2023
Two school corporations appealed the issuance of preliminary injunctions in favor of three transgender students. The school corporations requested that the court overturn its previous holding in  Whitaker ex rel. Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 Board of Education  regarding the rights of transgender students using restrooms consistent with their gender identity. The Seventh Circuit held that the students had Title IX and Equal Protection claims. The Martinsville school board filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of this decision. The petition was denied.

N.J. and A.L. v. David Sonnabend and Justin Bestor, 21-1959 , June 2022
Two students from two different school districts sued school administrators when they were told they could no longer wear T-shirts that depicted guns. The Seventh Circuit acknowledged the authority of school officials to permit restrictions on student speech if school authorities reasonably forecast that the speech would materially and substantially disrupt the order of the school environment.

Reinoehl v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp., 1:23-cv-008899-SEB-MG , August 2024
The plaintiffs brought a pro se §1983 action against Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, Indiana State Board of Education, and Indiana Secretary of Education Katie Jenner, challenging the teaching of evolution in public schools. The plaintiffs claimed that teaching evolution violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and Indiana's Constitution by promoting atheism. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana dismissed the case, finding that teaching evolution does not establish a religion.

E.D. v. Noblesville School District, 1:21-cv-03075-SEB-TAB , March 2024
E.D. was granted permission from the high school principal to form a student-led pro-life club. Two weeks later E.D. was advised by three different administrators that her flyer announcing the club’s first meeting could not include pictures and was not approved. As a result, the principal revoked the club’s status, citing concerns about whether the club would be student-led. The club was reinstated approximately four months later. E.D. filed 19 claims alleging violations of her First Amendment rights, retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment, violations of the Equal Access Act, and intimidation and bullying. However, the U.S. District Court denied all of E.D.'s claims. 

Stringham v. Carmel Clay Schools, 1:21-cv-03075-SEB-TAB , January 2024
Carmel was granted summary judgment in part and denied in part, in the case of a former counselor who alleged employment discrimination and retaliation due to her sex, race, and national origin, as well as a deprivation of equal protection and due process rights. The counselor claimed that she was targeted for being a homosexual Hispanic woman.

Smiley v. Jenner, 1:23-cv-01001-JPH-MKK , July 2023
Smiley, a teacher, requested a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of House Enrolled Act 1608-2023 and its provisions that prohibit teaching human sexuality to pre-kindergarten to third-grade students. The teacher claimed that the statute was unconstitutional as it violated the First Amendment by limiting her speech and that it also violated the Fourteenth Amendment as it was too vague. The federal district court judge found that teaching in a classroom is considered "government speech" and is not protected by the First Amendment. Additionally, the court held that the teacher had failed to prove that the statute was vague and that the terms "instruction" and "human sexuality" were commonly known. This court denied the teacher's motion for a preliminary injunction, stating that she failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on her claims. The teacher has since filed an appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Anderson Federation of Teachers v. Todd Rokita, 1:21-cv-01767 , June 2021

WTHR-TV v. Hamilton Southeastern Schools, and Rick Zimmer, 21S-MI-345 , January 2022

Culver Community Teachers Assoc. et al. v. IEERB, 21S-PL-64 , September 2021

Klaasen v. East Noble School Corp., Formal Complaint No. 23-FC-108 , December 2023​
The Public Access Counselor determined that the East Noble School Corporation did not violate the Open Door Law, nor the Access to Public Records Act, when it declined to release the names of preliminary committee members who reviewed library book challenges. The committee was appointed by the superintendent and consisted solely of internal staff.

Indiana Charter School Network v. Board of School Commissioners for the City of Indianapolis, Formal Complaint No. 23-FC-83 , November 2023

Ann M. Ennis v. Evansville Vanderburgh School Corporation, Formal Complaint No. 23-FC-77 , October 2023

Official Opinion 2024-4 , September 2024
The Indiana Attorney General’s Office outlines federal and state laws, including Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Indiana Civil Rights Act, prohibiting discrimination based on religion, shared ancestry, or ethnic characteristics and underscores that these protections extend to Jewish individuals in educational institutions. The opinion further emphasizes that schools and universities have affirmative obligations to combat antisemitism, including taking proactive steps to address harassment, intimidation, and violence against Jewish individuals.