The Justice and Education departments say they will not rely on seven joint civil rights guidance documents when enforcing federal nondiscrimination laws. Their October 23 notice also says the documents are not enforceable and that the departments plan to revisit them.
The listed texts address English learner students and their parents, harassment in schools, racial discrimination in student discipline and the Supreme Court's college admissions decision. The change concerns how the agencies use those particular documents; the notice does not repeal the laws they discuss.
Which documents are covered
The table identifies:
- Three documents issued January 7, 2015: a joint letter on English learner students and parents with limited English proficiency, a student fact sheet and information for parents, guardians, schools and school districts.
- A May 10, 2021 resource on confronting COVID-19-related harassment in schools.
- A May 26, 2023 resource on confronting racial discrimination in student discipline.
- Two August 14, 2023 documents about the Supreme Court's Students for Fair Admissions decision: a joint letter and a questions-and-answers document.
The enforcement statement covers Titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
What remains enforceable
The departments say guidance cannot establish enforceable responsibilities beyond those required by applicable statutes, regulations or binding judicial precedent. They note that some of the listed documents already disclaim binding effect or new legal requirements.
That distinction matters for students, families and institutions using guidance to understand their obligations or protections. The agencies' decision not to rely on these texts is not a finding that conduct previously discussed in them is lawful. The notice does not decide a particular school's compliance or an individual's complaint.
What happens next
The departments plan to review the documents in light of the Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision. They describe their task as assessing consistency with the relevant statutory text's best meaning.
That is the agencies' stated rationale for the review. The notice supplies neither replacement guidance nor a completion date, and announces no public comment deadline.