Exists in Name but Not in Function: The Dismantling of the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights

by Emmy Blane, Blog Citations Editor, University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 95

I. Introduction

On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered a unanimous ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, finding that state-sanctioned racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional.¹ Emphasizing that the long-standing “separate but equal” doctrine had no place in public education, Chief Justice Warren stated in the Court’s opinion that “[E]ducation is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments…[i]t is the very foundation of good citizenship…it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if [they are] denied the opportunity of an education.”²

In 1979, Congress created the Department of Education to support state and local governments’ education efforts and to ensure that Justice Warren’s vision was realized: that all students enjoy equal educational opportunities regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, or sex.³ Pursuant to the Department’s mission, for nearly fifty years, the Department has allocated federal funding to schools and enforced federal anti-discrimination laws in those schools through the Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”).⁴ However, in March of 2025, President Trump issued an executive order announcing his intention to close the Department of Education.⁵ To that end, the Department implemented Reductions in Force (“RIF”) of Department personnel.⁶

This Post will primarily focus on the RIF in the OCR, although the broader dismantling of the Department has involved the withholding of billions of dollars in federal funding and outsourcing key functions of the Department to other agencies.⁷ Additionally, while the Administration’s actions certainly implicate both constitutional and administrative laws, this Post will focus on the constitutional law aspects. Most importantly, the main focus of this Post are the children whose lives and educations have been tragically affected.⁸

Part II of this Post examines the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine, presents the creation and original design of the Department of Education, and introduces litigation stemming from the Department of Education’s RIF. Part III of this Post applies the separation of powers doctrine to the Trump Administration’s actions concerning the Department of Education and analyzes the impacts of the Department of Education’s RIF. Part III also suggests that, to ensure the Department of Education can fulfill its statutory functions, Congress pass legislation preventing the Trump Administration from effectively dismantling the Department. Finally, Part IV summarizes the Trump Administration’s actions regarding the OCR and emphasizes that Congress must take action to reject further dismantling of the Department and eroding of the separation of powers.

II. Background

To fully appreciate the scope of the changes the Trump Administration has made to the Department of Education, it is critical to not only understand the legal principles underlying the government’s power to alter federal agencies but also the inner workings of the Department of Education. To that end, Part A explains relevant constitutional doctrines, while Part B highlights why Congress created the Department of Education and specifically details the OCR’s functions. Part C focuses on the Trump Administration’s changes to the Department of Education and examines litigation related to those actions.

A. Separation of Powers: Tension Between Congressional and Executive Powers

The Framers of the Constitution created a federal government that consists of three separate branches with distinct powers designed to prevent branches from encroaching on the powers of another.⁹ These concepts, which are central to the United States’s democracy and Constitution, are commonly known as the “separation of powers” and “checks and balances.”¹⁰ Article I of the Constitution grants the legislative power to Congress, while Article II vests the executive power in the President and directs the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”¹¹ Article III vests the judicial power in the Supreme Court of the United States and lower courts and empowers those courts to decide cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States.¹²

Pursuant to its law-making power, Congress may create agencies, define agencies’ powers and limitations, and allocate agencies’ funding.¹³ However, the President does not possess the power to enact, amend, or repeal statutes, as that power resides solely with Congress and must conform with Article I of the Constitution.¹⁴ Additionally, so long as the President does not object to a statute on constitutional grounds and Congress has appropriated money for the statute, the President must follow the statute’s mandates.¹⁵ The President’s policy objections do not justify a refusal to follow statutory mandates or prohibitions, for the President must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”¹⁶

B. Creation of the Department of Education and the OCR’s Functions

In 1979, Congress created the federal Department of Education by passing the Department of Education Organization Act (“the Act”).¹⁷ By establishing a federal Department of Education, Congress and President Carter sought to improve the existing structure of education programs that had been housed across various federal agencies, with no single education official directly accountable to the President, Congress, or the American people.¹⁸ The Act created an Education Department that would “supplement and complement” the states’ education programming to ensure that every individual enjoyed equal access to high-quality educational opportunities regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, or sex.¹⁹

To enforce the Department of Education’s mission, Congress created the OCR by statute.²⁰ Congress designed the OCR to enforce compliance with federal civil rights statutes which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and disability in schools and education programs/activities that receive federal funding.²¹ To meet this statutory function, federal regulations require the OCR to promptly investigate and resolve complaints that allege violations of federal civil rights laws.²² The OCR’s manual mandates that investigators’ actions are “legally sufficient, supported by evidence, and dispositive of the allegations.”²³

When an investigation concludes, the OCR must explain its findings in a letter to the parties involved, specifically detailing whether the evidence it obtained constituted a violation.²⁴ If it finds a violation, the OCR must try to negotiate with parties to reach a resolution that will remedy the individual discrimination and prevent similar violations in the future.²⁵ The resolution must address the allegations and the evidence obtained during the investigation and satisfy the applicable anti-discrimination statute.²⁶ Finally, the OCR must monitor the federal funding recipient to ensure continued compliance with the agreement.²⁷ If the parties are unable to reach a resolution agreement promptly, the OCR must either initiate administrative proceedings to discuss the recipient’s financial assistance moving forward or refer the case to the Department of Justice.²⁸ Beyond enforcement actions, the OCR also provides proactive guidance and assistance to help federal funding recipients comply with civil rights laws and to prevent violations from ever occurring.²⁹

A 2022 nationwide study of Kindergarten through Twelfth Grade (“K-12”) civil rights complaints showed that disability-related claims are the most common type of OCR complaint.³⁰ Complaints related to race are the second most common, followed by sex-related complaints.³¹ The OCR also investigates disparate impact cases.³² Disparate impact discrimination “occurs when a seemingly neutral policy or action causes a disproportionate and unjustified negative harm to a group, regardless of intent.”³³

C. The Trump Administration’s Department of Education

On the first day of President Trump’s second term, he established by executive order the Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”).³⁴ Shortly after, President Trump announced DOGE’s Workforce Optimization Initiative which would eliminate “waste, bloat, and insularity” in the federal government and thereby transform the Federal bureaucracy.³⁵ To that end, the President directed DOGE to reduce the size of the federal government by implementing hiring freezes and large-scale reductions in force.³⁶

On March 11, 2025, the Department of Education, which houses the smallest staff of any cabinet-level executive department, announced that it had initiated a RIF, reducing the Department’s 4,133 workers to 2,183, a decrease of nearly 50%.³⁷ A significant target of the Department’s RIF was the OCR: approximately half of its staff was placed on administrative leave, and seven of its twelve regional offices were closed.³⁸ On March 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order declaring that Education Secretary McMahon, “shall, to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education….”³⁹ In the executive order, President Trump also declared that the allocation of federal funds would be subject to “rigorous compliance” with the Administration’s policy that “any program or activity receiving Federal assistance [shall] terminate illegal discrimination obscured under the label ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ or similar terms and programs promoting gender ideology.”⁴⁰

In January 2026, the Department of Education rescinded the RIF of OCR employees.⁴¹ According to the United States Government Accountability Office, it cost the government up to $38 million to pay the salaries and benefits of OCR employees who were placed on administrative leave subject to the RIF.⁴² From March to September 2025, the OCR received 9,000 complaints and resolved over 7,000 of them by dismissing approximately 90% of the complaints.⁴³

Additionally, Congress’s Appropriations Act for the remainder of the 2026 Fiscal Year allocated complete funding for the Department of Education.⁴⁴ However, the bill did not include provisions reversing the changes to the Department that the Trump Administration had already directed or preventing the Administration from implementing further changes.⁴⁵ Additionally, in April 2026, President Trump proposed a budget cut of more than eight billion dollars in K-12 education funding for Fiscal Year 2027.⁴⁶ Notably, the proposal reduces the OCR’s budget by approximately one-third of its current allocation.⁴⁷ On September 1, 2026, Congress passed a continuing resolution which delayed a vote on the Fiscal Year 2027 budget until after the 2026 midterm elections.⁴⁸

D. Victim Rights Law Center v. United States Department of Education

In Victim Rights Law Center v. United States Department of Education (“Victim Rights”), a district court found that the RIF prevented the OCR from fulfilling its statutory functions.⁴⁹ Student plaintiffs T.R. and A.J. and the Victim Rights Law Center (“VRLC”)––a nonprofit organization focused on the legal needs of sex-based harassment victims and which represents students in OCR investigations––brought suit against the Department of Education, challenging the RIF on the grounds that the OCR terminated its investigations and prevented the students from returning to school safely.⁵⁰

Plaintiff T.R. is a twelve-year-old Black child in Nebraska who experienced persistent race-based harassment at school in the form of physical assaults and racial slurs.⁵¹ On one occasion, a student “pushed T.R. to the ground and stomped on his head, and teachers found T.R. crying in the fetal position.”⁵² When T.R. and his mother reported the racial harassment to school administrators, the school failed to take action to protect T.R.⁵³ Therefore, T.R.’s mother felt she had no choice but to withdraw her son from school and file a complaint with the OCR, which began investigating the school’s response to the harassment.⁵⁴ However, as part of the RIF, the Department closed the Dallas, Texas, OCR regional office where T.R. properly filed his complaint.⁵⁵ The District Court found that T.R.’s complaint was “likely to remain uninvestigated and unresolved due to the RIF.”⁵⁶

Plaintiff A.J. is a ten-year-old child in Michigan with a life-threatening dairy allergy, which constitutes a legal disability.⁵⁷ Throughout the school year, students “repeatedly and severely harassed [A.J.] for his allergies.”⁵⁸ Classmates shoved and pushed A.J. to the ground while waving food that contained his allergens and taunted him to touch or eat it.⁵⁹ On separate occasions, students rubbed cheese on A.J.’s desk and poured milk on his lunch and coat.⁶⁰ Because the school did not respond to the ongoing harassment and the school district denied A.J.’s request to transfer to a different public school, A.J.’s mother was forced to withdraw him from school.⁶¹ A.J.’s mother filed an OCR complaint, but a few months later, the OCR informed her that it had paused the investigation.⁶² Considering that the OCR has not contacted A.J.’s mother since, the District Court found that the OCR stopped investigating the complaint, which effectively prevents A.J. from attending school.⁶³

The VRLC claimed that since the RIF, it has tried to contact OCR investigators and usual points of contact to discuss cases and has received no response.⁶⁴ The VRLC explained that the termination of OCR employees has not only caused the VRLC to expend its limited resources exploring alternative avenues of relief for its existing clients, but it is also receiving more requests for help from students around the country whose complaints the OCR stopped investigating.⁶⁵

Finding that the Plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm along with other necessary elements of a preliminary injunction, the District Court granted their motion, enjoining the Defendants from implementing the RIF and ordering the Defendants to restore the OCR to the status quo to carry out its statutory functions.⁶⁶ In closing, the District Court noted the “continuing need to ensure equal access for all Americans to educational opportunities of a high quality” and that “such educational opportunities should not be denied because of race, creed, color, national origin, or sex.”⁶⁷ The Defendants appealed, and the litigation is ongoing.⁶⁸

III. Discussion

Part A of this Section applies the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine to the Trump Administration’s actions related to the Department of Education. Part B discusses the harmful effects of the Department of Education’s RIF, while Part C suggests that Congress pass legislation not only rejecting the Trump Administration’s proposed funding cuts, but also preventing the Executive Branch from making structural changes that eliminate the Department’s statutory functions.

A. The Trump Administration’s Dismantling of the Department of Education Violates the Constitution’s Separation of Powers Doctrine

Although the federal government acknowledged that it cannot shut down the Department of Education without Congressional approval, it essentially did just that by gutting the Department such that it could not fulfill its statutory duties.⁶⁹ By implementing the RIF and rendering the OCR––a statutorily created office––obsolete, the Executive breached its constitutional oath to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” as the very reason Congress created the Department of Education and the OCR––to ensure equal access to education and enforce federal anti-discrimination laws in schools––was no longer being executed.

Although Congress did fully fund the Department for the remainder of the 2026 Fiscal Year, it had the opportunity to check the Executive’s encroachment into exclusive Legislative power by including provisions that condemned the Administration’s changes to the Department and that prevented the Administration from implementing additional changes.⁷⁰ Its failure to do so marks a refusal to uphold the Constitution’s separation of powers principles, and, as the District Court’s findings demonstrated, it is children like T.R. and A.J. who will bear the consequences.⁷¹

B. Impact of the Department of Education’s Reduction in Force and Policy Shifts

Consider the message sent about the value of children and education when the Trump Administration chose to pay $38 million to keep OCR employees on administrative leave in 2025 while simultaneously dismissing thousands of students’ civil rights complaints.⁷² Rescission of the RIF does not undo its impact. Even if the OCR staff returns in full, the education of students like T.R. and A.J. has already been damaged and continues to be jeopardized because it is dangerous and impracticable for them to return to school without assurance that the OCR is facilitating a resolution for their safe return. T.R. and A.J.’s experiences are known because their names are attached to lawsuits, but nearly fifty million children in the United States are enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools.⁷³ Inevitably, many more students are facing experiences similar to T.R.’s and A.J’s.

Similarly, just as rescinding the RIF cannot undo its impact, the return of OCR employees does not guarantee that the OCR will return to the purpose Congress intended. Despite data showing that, historically, disability discrimination accounts for the majority of K-12 OCR complaints, and although it dismissed 90% of the complaints it received in 2025, the OCR announced upon its return in January of 2026 that it had opened numerous investigations concerning transgender students’ participation in sports.⁷⁴ Additionally, since President Trump took office in 2025, the OCR has not resolved a single complaint related to racial discrimination or harassment against Black students.⁷⁵ This is not a mere policy shift––it upends the OCR’s statutory function and abandons the students Congress intended the OCR to protect.⁷⁶

The shift in OCR’s focus means that students facing discrimination and harassment in schools must resort to legal assistance outside of the OCR to address their harm.⁷⁷ However, hiring a lawyer is often extremely expensive and may be impossible for many families to afford.⁷⁸ For families who can afford to hire a lawyer, it can take months or even years for cases to progress through the legal system,⁷⁹ leaving students in the same place as before––a school too dangerous to attend and without assurance that it will become safer in the future. Not only is the education of the students suffering in their formative years, but the lack of justice sends the message that the students’ experiences do not matter.⁸⁰

C. Congress Should Pass Legislation

While Congress fully funded the Department of Education in its Fiscal Year 2026 Appropriations Act, it did not include provisions addressing the Executive Branch’s restructuring and dismantling of the Department’s statutory functions.⁸¹ Especially considering President Trump’s proposal to cut eight billion dollars in K-12 funding for Fiscal Year 2027––including a third of the OCR’s budget––Congressional action is vital to ensure that the Department of Education’s statutory functions are fulfilled.⁸²

To hold the Executive accountable and to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, Congress should not only continue to fully fund the Department but should also pass legislation rejecting the Executive’s dismantling of the Department. While it is questionable whether the Trump Administration would abide by such legislation, that is where the Judicial Branch of government plays a significant role.⁸³ When cases challenging the Trump Administration’s actions come before the courts, it is imperative to the democratic principles of this country that the courts apply the law to uphold the Constitution and hold the Executive accountable.⁸⁴

IV. Conclusion

Congress created the Department of Education in 1979 to ensure that all students enjoy equal educational opportunities regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, or sex.⁸⁵ Nearly fifty years later, the Trump Administration implemented a RIF which reduced Department of Education personnel by nearly half and eliminated seven of twelve OCR regional offices––the office Congress created to enforce federal anti-discrimination laws in schools and education programs that receive federal funding.⁸⁶ When the Victim Rights Law Center and two students challenged the federal government’s actions, a federal district court found that a preliminary injunction was warranted to prevent the plaintiffs from suffering irreparable harm.⁸⁷

Moving forward, Congress must pass legislation that prevents the Trump Administration from dismantling the Department of Education’s key functions and guarantees that the Department remains fully funded. If Congress fails to act, the very reason Congress created the Department of Education will no longer be realized and the separation of powers will continue to erode. And as the cases of T.R. and A.J. demonstrate, it is students who will experience the harshest consequences of a Department of Education that exists in name but not in actual function.⁸⁸

Cover Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Author

Emmy Blane

References

1
Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954). ↩︎
2
Id. at 493 (citation modified). ↩︎
3
20 U.S.C. § 3401. ↩︎
4
Id. at § 3413. ↩︎
5
Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities, 90 Fed. Reg. 13679 (Mar. 20, 2025). ↩︎
6
Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., U.S. Department of Education Initiates Reduction in Force (Mar. 11, 2025). ↩︎
7
U.S. Department of Education Withholds School Funding for FY25, Nat’l Educ. Ass’n (July 1, 2025), https://www.nea.org/resource-library/us-department-education-withholds-school-funding-fy25#:~:text=Federal%20Funding%20Guide-,U.S.%20Department%20of%20Education%20Withholds%20School%20Funding%20for%20FY25,migrant%20students%20and%20English%20learners [https://perma.cc/4NQF-HGPH]; Kara Arundel, Education Department outsources program management to other agencies, K-12 Dive (Nov. 18, 2025), https://www.k12dive.com/news/education-department-outsources-program-management-interagency-agreements/805819/ [https://perma.cc/82CR-6UK6]. ↩︎
8
Victim Rts. L. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 788 F. Supp. 3d 70, 74 (D. Mass. 2025). ↩︎
9
Mark C. Alexander et al., Learning Constitutional Law: Powers, Structure, and the Fourteenth Amendment 329-31 (1st ed. 2024). ↩︎
10
Id. ↩︎
11
U.S. Const. art. I, § 1, art. II, § 1, § 3. ↩︎
12
U.S. Const. art. III, § 1-2. ↩︎
13
Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 128 (1926). ↩︎
14
Clinton v. City of N.Y., 524 U.S. 417, 438 (1998). ↩︎
15
U.S. Const. art. II, § 3; In re Aiken Cnty., 725 F.3d 255, 259 (D.C. Cir. 2013). ↩︎
16
Id. ↩︎
17
20 U.S.C. § 3401. ↩︎
18
Id. ↩︎
19
Id. ↩︎
20
Id. § 3413. ↩︎
21
Id.; N.Y. v. McMahon, 784 F. Supp. 3d 311, 329 (D. Mass. 2025) (explaining that the OCR was created to enforce the following federal civil rights laws: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans race discrimination and race-based harassment; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bans sex discrimination and sexual harassment; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which bans disability discrimination; and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which bans disability discrimination by public entities). ↩︎
22
McMahon, 784 F. Supp. at 331. ↩︎
23
Id. (quoting the OCR’s Case Processing Manual). ↩︎
24
Id. ↩︎
25
Id. ↩︎
26
Victim Rts. L. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 788 F. Supp. 3d 70, 76 (D. Mass. 2025) (quoting the OCR’s Case Processing Manual). ↩︎
27
McMahon, 784 F. Supp. at 331. ↩︎
28
Id. ↩︎
29
Victim Rts. L. Ctr.., 788 F. Supp. at 76–77. ↩︎
30
Maithreyi Gopalan & Maria M. Lewis, K–12 Civil Rights Complaints: A Nationwide Analysis, 51 Educ. Rsch. 584, 584 (2022). ↩︎
31
Id. ↩︎
32
Jared P. Cole, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IF12455, Race Discrimination at School: Title VI and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (2023). ↩︎
33
April J. Anderson, Cong. Rsch. Serv. IF13057, What Is Disparate-Impact Discrimination? (2025). ↩︎
34
Establishing and Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency”, 90 Fed. Reg. 8441 (Jan. 20, 2025). ↩︎
35
Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Workforce Optimization Initiative, 90 Fed. Reg. 9669 (Feb. 11, 2025). ↩︎
36
Id. ↩︎
37
Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., U.S. Department of Education Initiates Reduction in Force (Mar. 11, 2025). ↩︎
38
U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-26-108320, Department of Education: Full Costs and Savings Estimate Needed for Reduction-in-Force and Restructuring of the Office for Civil Rights (2026). ↩︎
39
Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities, 90 Fed. Reg. 13679 (Mar. 20, 2025). ↩︎
40
Id. (citation modified). ↩︎
41
U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-26-108320, Department of Education: Full Costs and Savings Estimate Needed for Reduction-in-Force and Restructuring of the Office for Civil Rights (2026). ↩︎
42
Id. ↩︎
43
Id. ↩︎
44
Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 119-75 (2026). ↩︎
45
See id. ↩︎
46
Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, Budget of the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2027 (Apr. 2026), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/budget_fy2027.pdf [https://perma.cc/6K9W-9R9X]. ↩︎
47
Id.; see also Mark Lieberman, Trump Again Proposes Major Education Cuts in New Budget Proposal, Educ. Wk. (Apr. 3, 2026), https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/trump-again-proposes-major-education-cuts-in-new-budget-proposal/2026/04?utm_source=nl&utm_medium=eml&utm_campaign=eu&M=17553798&UUID=98533de0880848d0f4a3fcbb041ca839&T=22854105 [https://perma.cc/M74P-S9F6]. ↩︎
48
Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027, H.R. 6500, 119 Cong. (Sep. 1, 2026); see also Mark Lieberman, Averting a Shutdown, Congress Punts Federal Spending Decisions to December, Educ. Wk. (Sep. 1, 2026), https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/averting-a-shutdown-congress-punts-federal-spending-decisions-to-december/2026/09?utm_source=nl&utm_medium=eml&utm_campaign=eu&M=19594739&UUID=98533de0880848d0f4a3fcbb041ca839&T=25785548 [https://perma.cc/GP6M-V5EN]. ↩︎
49
Victim Rts. L. Ctr., 788 F. Supp. at 98. ↩︎
50
Id. at 74. ↩︎
51
Id. at 80. ↩︎
52
Id. ↩︎
53
Id. ↩︎
54
Id. at 80–81. ↩︎
55
Id. at 81. ↩︎
56
Id. ↩︎
57
Id. ↩︎
58
Id. (citation modified). ↩︎
59
Id. ↩︎
60
Id. ↩︎
61
Id. ↩︎
62
Id. ↩︎
63
Id. ↩︎
64
Id. at 82. ↩︎
65
Id. ↩︎
66
Id. at 98. ↩︎
67
Id. at 97. ↩︎
68
Victim Rts. L. Ctr. v. United States Dep’t of Educ., 154 F.4th 5, 6 (1st Cir. 2025). ↩︎
69
Victim Rts. L. Ctr. v. United States Dep’t of Educ., 788 F. Supp. 3d 70, 74 (D. Mass. 2025). ↩︎
70
Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 119-75 (2026). ↩︎
71
Victim Rts. L. Ctr., 788 F. Supp. at 97. ↩︎
72
U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-26-108320, Department of Education: Full Costs and Savings Estimate Needed for Reduction-in-Force and Restructuring of the Office for Civil Rights (2026). ↩︎
73
Nat’l Ctr. for Educ. Stat., Fast Facts: Back-to-school statistics, https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372 [https://perma.cc/EDN8-F9E4] (last visited Apr. 16, 2026). ↩︎
74
Gopalan, supra note 30 at 584; U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-26-108320, Department of Education: Full Costs and Savings Estimate Needed for Reduction-in-Force and Restructuring of the Office for Civil Rights (2026); Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Initiates 18 Title IX Investigations (Jan. 14, 2026). ↩︎
75
Rachel M. Perera, How the Department of Education has turned civil rights enforcement into a discriminatory tool, Brookings (Feb. 20, 2026), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-the-us-department-of-education-has-turned-civil-rights-enforcement-into-a-discriminatory-tool/ [https://perma.cc/93A6-2J2D]. ↩︎
76
20 U.S.C. § 3413. ↩︎
77
Victim Rts. L. Ctr. v. United States Dep’t of Educ., 788 F. Supp. 3d 70, 77–79 (D. Mass. 2025). ↩︎
78
Emery G. Lee III, Law Without Lawyers: Access to Civil Justice and the Cost of Legal Services, 69 U. Mia. L. Rev. 499, 502–04 (2015) (“Pursuing a civil action in federal court costs an average of $15,000, the Federal Judicial Center reported last year…[s]ome people cannot afford to pursue claims; others are overwhelmed by corporate defendants with deeper pockets.”) (citation modified); Victim Rts. L. Ctr., 788 F. Supp. at 77 (“[F]inding an attorney who can navigate the complex demands of litigation is too financially and logistically burdensome for most students, as compared to the OCR process.”). ↩︎
79
How long does a civil rights case take?, Civ. Rts. Litig. Grp. (Jan. 14, 2021), https://www.rightslitigation.com/2021/01/14/how-long-does-a-civil-rights-case-take/#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20it%20takes%20two%20to%20three,you%20can%20move%20forward%20with%20a%20lawsuit [https://perma.cc/7ZEG-2KY9] (“If you have a civil rights case that is taken on by an attorney, those cases typically require two to three years (on average) to get to trial. That timeframe can be delayed even further if a case is appealed before trial.”). ↩︎
80
Jennifer Smith Richards et al., Monkey Sounds, “White Power” and the N-Word: Racial Harassment Against Black Students Ignored Under Trump, ProPublica (Dec. 19, 2025), https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-education-department-civil-rights-racial-harassment [https://perma.cc/H55F-GPSP] (quoting an attorney who stated in reference to the halted OCR investigations, “The message that it sends is that the people impacted by racial discrimination and harassment don’t matter[.]”) (citation modified). ↩︎
81
Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 119-75 (2026). ↩︎
82
Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, Budget of the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2027 (Apr. 2026), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/budget_fy2027.pdf [https://perma.cc/6K9W-9R9X]. ↩︎
83
U.S. Const. art. III, § 1-2. ↩︎
84
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177–78 (1803). See also The Federalist No.78 (“The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning.”). ↩︎
85
Id.; 20 U.S.C. § 3401. ↩︎
86
Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., U.S. Department of Education Initiates Reduction in Force (Mar. 11, 2025); U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-26-108320, Department of Education: Full Costs and Savings Estimate Needed for Reduction-in-Force and Restructuring of the Office for Civil Rights (2026). ↩︎
87
Victim Rts. L. Ctr. v. United States Dep’t of Educ., 788 F. Supp. 3d 70, 98 (D. Mass. 2025). ↩︎
88
Id.; N.Y. v. McMahon, 784 F. Supp. 3d 311, 369 (D. Mass. 2025) (“To remove seven of the twelve regional offices and approximately half of OCR’s enforcement personnel means the office will exist in name but not in actual function.”). ↩︎