Overview
The 2025–2026 Supreme Court term begins with a narrowed docket but potentially sweeping implications for K–12 education, particularly in civil rights, Title IX, and First Amendment jurisprudence. Following the end of Chevron deference, federal agencies—including the U.S. Department of Education—face weakened authority to interpret and enforce IDEA, Section 504, and Title IX.

Although no IDEA-specific case is currently docketed, several pending cases and emerging trends will reshape district policies governing gender identity, equal protection, religious rights, and the definition of intellectual disability itself.

1. Title IX and Transgender Student Rights
   Cases: West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox (Idaho)
   Issue: Whether Title IX’s ban on sex discrimination allows transgender students to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity.
   Potential Impact:
   • A narrow reading (“sex = birth sex”) would permit state bans on transgender athletes and may affect bathroom access, counseling, and health services.
   • A broad reading (“sex = gender identity”) would affirm civil rights protections and force policy revisions in 27 states with existing bans.
   • Could redefine how the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause applies to gender identity in schools.
2. First Amendment Expansion
   The Court continues to prioritize free-speech and religious-expression claims following Kennedy v. Bremerton (school prayer) and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier (school-board social media).
   Emerging issues:
   • Parental opt-outs from LGBTQ+-inclusive curricula
   • Book/material bans grounded in religious claims
   • Efforts to re-introduce explicit Christian symbolism in public schools
   Special-education connection:
   IDEA and Section 504 require religion-neutral FAPE provision. Broader religious-exemption rulings could complicate counseling, SEL, and health services integral to many IEPs.
3. Definition of Intellectual Disability
   Case: Smith v. Texas (pseudonym pending)
   Issue: How courts should define “intellectual disability” under the Eighth Amendment and ADA when determining eligibility for protections in capital and civil contexts. The Court will clarify whether states can use a fixed IQ threshold or must consider adaptive functioning and clinical judgment as set forth by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) and APA DSM-5 standards.
   Potential Impact on Education:
   • Could reverberate into IDEA eligibility determinations for students with intellectual disabilities, especially in states that tie eligibility criteria to IQ cutoffs.
   • May prompt re-evaluation of state definitions and eligibility criteria for IDEA Part B classification, particularly where “significantly below average intellectual functioning” is interpreted rigidly.
   • May affect transition and post-secondary eligibility for services under Section 504 and ADA.
   • A ruling favoring broader adaptive-functioning criteria would align special-education practice with current clinical understanding and reduce litigation over eligibility disputes.
   Key Quote: “The justices will determine whether states can rely solely on IQ scores or must consider adaptive behavior and professional standards in identifying intellectual disability”
4. Expansion of the Shadow Docket
   The Court’s use of emergency orders continues to reshape policy without full briefing or oral argument.
   Examples include temporary orders on teacher-training funds, federal staffing reductions, and transgender student access cases. These shadow-docket actions can instantly alter national education policy and civil-rights enforcement.
5. Implications for IDEA, Section 504, and Federal Policy
   • Title IX definitions could influence gender-identity discrimination under 504 and IDEA.
   • Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024) reduces deference to OSEP and OCR guidance, increasing district litigation risk.
   • Religious liberty and speech cases may challenge inclusive curricula and SEL programs linked to disability supports.
   • Emergency orders may affect appropriations for special-education funding or staffing ratios.

Key Takeaways for Special-Education Leaders
• Track Smith v. Texas and related cases defining intellectual disability.
• Monitor Title IX decisions for cross-impact on Section 504 and IDEA nondiscrimination obligations.
• Update district eligibility criteria to align with adaptive functioning and clinical definitions if the Court mandates change.
• Prepare for reduced federal guidance authority and increased state-level variability.
• Communicate clearly with staff and families about policy shifts that may occur mid-year.

Conclusion
This term may redefine how the nation interprets disability itself. The Court’s forthcoming decision on intellectual disability and its broader civil-rights cases will determine whether federal protections for students with disabilities remain anchored in clinical science and civil-rights principles or shift toward state-defined limits. Special-education leaders should anticipate greater litigation risk, less federal clarity, and the need to proactively align local practice with evolving constitutional and clinical standards.