Shuttering Civil Rights Offices Could Affect Students’ Ability to Address Discrimination

Black teenager Ja’Liyah Celestine said that last year at her Texas high school, an officer pepper-sprayed her, grabbed her by hair, and kneed her in her face.

A federal civil rights complaint was filed on her behalf and on behalf of other Black students, alleging that Beaumont Independent School District “violated Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against them and disproportionately subjecting them to law enforcement referrals.”

It’s unclear what will happen with that case and thousands of similar ones across the country. The U.S. Supreme Court this month allowed the Trump administration to continue with its plans to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and shutter seven of its 12 Office for Civil Rights locations, including the Dallas office, which was overseeing Celestine’s claim. Advocates fear that students will be denied the resources they need to protect their basic rights at school.

The Office for Civil Rights, one of the federal government’s primary mechanisms for enforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, previously had a presence in 12 cities: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Kansas City, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.

As part of the Trump administration’s erosion of the Education Department, only the offices in Atlanta, Denver, Kansas City, Seattle, and Washington remain open.

In a 19-page dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the conservative majority’s decision to scale back the protections the agency affords to students.

“Lifting the District Court’s injunction will unleash untold harm, delaying or denying educational opportunities and leaving students to suffer from discrimination, sexual assault, and other civil rights violations without the federal resources Congress intended,” she wrote in her dissent, which Justices Elena Kagan and Kentanji Brown Jackson joined.

Advocates are taking stock of different ways to defend students’ rights, including by going through state and federal courts, Hairston said. He was thinking specifically of Section 1983 claims, a federal statute that permits people to sue certain government entities if they believe that a constitutional right has been violated.

Still, Hairston said, the path forward will be difficult if advocates can’t rely on the full suite of governmental tools for protecting students.

Additionally, the Education Department has adopted Trump’s priorities. Within weeks of the start of Trump’s second term, the agency opened probes into five Northern Virginia school districts. It claimed that the districts’ policies allowing transgender students to use facilities that align with their gender breaks federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in schools.

The department has also directed its attention toward the alleged discrimination that white students face and toward policies that support diversity, equity, and inclusion.

It launched an “End DEI” portal earlier this year that was touted by the far-right group Moms for Liberty as a means of getting schools to focus on “teaching their kids practical skills like reading, writing, and math, instead of pushing critical theory, rogue sex education, and divisive ideologies.”

“Often what we’re seeking when we submit complaints on behalf of Black children is a remediation of past discrimination and an acknowledgement that slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and mass incarceration inform how Black children receive their education in 2025,” Hairston said. “But now there’s been this unfortunate twisting of our country’s civil rights laws by the federal government at a time when we should be making sure that all children can succeed.”