Education lawsuits in the United States have moved well beyond fights over school funding. Recent cases include a Connecticut honors graduate who says she can’t read, a $50 million California settlement to teach phonics in the lowest-performing schools, a Detroit case that briefly recognized a constitutional right to literacy, a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling that shut down thirty years of school funding litigation, a suit against the authors of a popular reading curriculum, a class action over student data collected by an assessment platform, and a federal battle over whether the president can shutter the U.S. Department of Education. Taken together, they show both how far plaintiffs have pushed and how firmly courts continue to resist recognizing education as a fundamental federal right.
The Hartford Honors Graduate Who Couldn’t Read
Aleysha Ortiz graduated from Hartford Public High School in Connecticut in the spring of 2024 with honors. She was 19, and she says she had never learned to read or write. Over the course of her schooling she was diagnosed with ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, anxiety, a communication disorder, and dyslexia, though the dyslexia diagnosis didn’t come until her final month of high school.1CNN. Connecticut Student Sues After Graduating With Honors While Illiterate Ortiz says she completed twelve years of assignments using speech-to-text and text-to-speech apps because she “didn’t understand anything.”2Latin Times. Student Sues High School Insisting She Can’t Read or Write Despite Graduating With Honors
Her lawsuit alleges negligence by the Hartford Board of Education and the City of Hartford, and negligent infliction of emotional distress by her former special education case manager, Tilda Santiago. Ortiz claims Santiago subjected her to “repeated bullying and harassment,” stalked her on school grounds, and mocked her disabilities.1CNN. Connecticut Student Sues After Graduating With Honors While Illiterate She is seeking $3 million in damages.3CT Mirror. Aleysha Ortiz Lawsuit Against Hartford
The case has drawn political attention. The state Department of Education launched an investigation, and Republican state senators pushed for accountability, though Hartford Public Schools refused to turn over requested records on the grounds that doing so “could complicate the parties’ resolution” of the lawsuit.4CT Mirror. Hartford Schools Dodging Accountability Regarding Grad’s Illiteracy State officials pointed to recently passed “Right to Read” legislation as evidence they were already addressing literacy.5CT Senate Republicans. CT GOP Seeks Accountability for High School Grad Who Can’t Read As of August 2025 the case was still pending. Defendants moved to dismiss, Superior Court Judge Matthew Gordon heard arguments on August 11, 2025, and did not rule from the bench. Ortiz’s attorney, Anthony Spinella, has said he will appeal if the case is thrown out.6CT Public. Hartford’s Attorneys Argue to Dismiss Lawsuit Brought by Student Who Graduated Without Learning to Read
California’s $50 Million Literacy Settlement
Ortiz’s suit targets one student’s experience. California’s Ella T. v. State of California went after an entire system. Filed in December 2017 by Public Counsel and Morrison & Foerster in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the case was brought on behalf of students at three elementary schools where third-grade reading proficiency was 3 percent at La Salle Avenue Elementary, 7 percent at Van Buren Elementary, and 10 percent at Children of Promise Preparatory Academy.7CalMatters. California Literacy Rights Lawsuit Settlement
The lawsuit argued that California was violating the constitutional rights of low-income students of color by failing to provide basic literacy instruction. It settled in 2020. California agreed to direct $50 million to the 75 elementary schools with the highest concentration of third-graders scoring in the bottom tier on standardized reading exams, funding literacy coaches, phonics training for teachers, classroom aides, and reading materials.7CalMatters. California Literacy Rights Lawsuit Settlement8EdSource. The Right to Read: It Took a Lawsuit Against California
A 2023 Stanford University study found that third-grade reading scores at participating schools rose measurably in 2022 and 2023 compared to similar schools, with gains equivalent to roughly an extra quarter year of learning. Researchers called the investment thirteen times more cost-effective than typical school spending.9Hechinger Report. Right to Read Settlement Spurred Higher Reading Scores in California’s Lowest-Performing Schools The settlement did not establish a legal right to literacy, but lead attorney Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel called it a “historic first step forward” and noted the agreement left the door open to future litigation if outcomes failed to improve.7CalMatters. California Literacy Rights Lawsuit Settlement
Detroit and the Right to Literacy That Almost Was
A federal case out of Detroit produced, for a moment, something no court had recognized before. In Gary B. v. Whitmer, filed in 2016, students at five Detroit schools described missing textbooks, buildings in disrepair, and too few qualified teachers. They argued Michigan had warehoused them in “schools in name only.”10NPR. Court Rules Detroit Students Have Constitutional Right to an Education
In April 2020, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled 2-1 that the Constitution provides a fundamental right to a “basic minimum education” centered on access to literacy. Judge Eric Clay, writing for the majority, reasoned that because literacy is essential for voting, serving on a jury, paying taxes, and daily life, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a remedy when a state denies children a “plausible chance to attain literacy.”10NPR. Court Rules Detroit Students Have Constitutional Right to an Education
The ruling was short-lived. The full Sixth Circuit voted to rehear the case and vacated the panel’s opinion.11ACLU of Michigan. Right to Literacy12Chalkbeat Detroit. Detroit Public Schools Right to Read Settlement13State of Michigan. Governor Whitmer and Plaintiffs Announce Settlement in Landmark Gary B. Literacy Case The seven individual student-plaintiffs shared $280,000. In exchange, they dropped their bid to establish a constitutional right to literacy.
North Carolina Closes a Three-Decade Door
Where Gary B. briefly cracked a door open, the North Carolina Supreme Court slammed one shut in April 2026. In a 4-3 decision, the court dismissed Leandro v. State with prejudice. The case had been winding through North Carolina courts since 1994.14ABC11. North Carolina Supreme Court Overturns Leandro School Funding Ruling
Leandro had established that North Carolina students have a constitutional right to a “sound, basic education” and produced decades of court orders aimed at making the state pay for it. A 2023 trial court order required the state to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars for education improvements. The newly Republican-majority Supreme Court ruled that judges lack authority to order the legislature to spend money, and that the case had improperly expanded from its original 1994 claims into a statewide challenge over which the trial court had no jurisdiction.15NC Newsline. North Carolina Supreme Court Vacates Nine Years of Leandro School Funding Orders
Chief Justice Paul Newby, writing for the majority, said “the people did not vest the judicial branch with the power to resolve policy disputes between the other branches of government or to set education policy.”14ABC11. North Carolina Supreme Court Overturns Leandro School Funding Ruling The ruling vacated all court orders issued after 2017, halted the state’s “Comprehensive Remedial Plan,” and returned full control over education funding to the General Assembly.16State Court Report. North Carolina Supreme Court Throws Out Decades-Old Right to Education Case
Suing the Authors of a Reading Curriculum
Not every education lawsuit names a school. In Massachusetts, two parents sued the people who designed reading programs their children were taught. The defendants were Lucy Calkins of Columbia’s Teachers College, Irene Fountas of Lesley University, and Gay Su Pinnell of Ohio State, prominent advocates of “balanced literacy,” an approach that emphasizes strategies like contextual guessing over systematic phonics instruction.17Education Week. Court Dismisses Reading Lawsuit Against Lucy Calkins, Other Balanced Literacy Proponents The parents alleged the authors used deceptive marketing to sell their curricula, falsely claiming the programs were research-backed while omitting or downplaying the role of phonics, and brought claims under Massachusetts consumer protection law.18Mass Lawyers Weekly. Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Balanced Literacy Approach to Teaching Reading
U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns dismissed the case in May 2025. Because the plaintiffs acknowledged the authors cited some research, the dispute reduced to whether that research was good enough, and the court said that wasn’t its call. “Decisions about how best to teach reading should be made by educators,” Stearns wrote.18Mass Lawyers Weekly. Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Balanced Literacy Approach to Teaching Reading
Flint, Lead, and Special Education
After the Flint water crisis exposed tens of thousands of children to lead-contaminated drinking water beginning in 2014, a class action was filed on behalf of fifteen named plaintiffs and thousands of Flint schoolchildren. D.R. v. Michigan Department of Education alleged that the Michigan Department of Education, Flint Community Schools, and the Genesee Intermediate School District failed to screen, evaluate, and serve students who developed cognitive, learning, and behavioral impairments from the lead exposure.19Education Law Center. D.R. v. Michigan Department of Education Overview
A partial 2018 settlement required a five-year screening and assessment program. In the final deal, the Michigan Department of Education deposited nearly $9.7 million into a “Flint Water Crisis Special Education Fund.” The court formally approved the settlement in May 2021 and dismissed the case with prejudice in August 2024, retaining jurisdiction to enforce the agreement’s terms.20Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. D.R. ex rel. Richardson v. Michigan Department of Education
The Fight Over the Department of Education Itself
The highest-stakes education-related litigation of 2025 isn’t about reading at all. After President Trump signed a March 2025 executive order directing the closure of the U.S. Department of Education and a reduction in force that cut more than half of its staff, twenty states, the District of Columbia, school districts, and unions sued in federal court in Massachusetts.21SCOTUSblog. McMahon v. State of New York
A federal district judge issued a preliminary injunction in May 2025 ordering reinstatement of terminated employees and blocking the executive order. The First Circuit declined to stay the injunction. In July 2025, the Supreme Court granted the government’s request to stay the injunction while the case proceeds on appeal. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented.21SCOTUSblog. McMahon v. State of New York The stay lets the administration keep downsizing the Department while the question of whether a president can unilaterally dismantle a Cabinet-level agency created by Congress remains unresolved.22U.S. Supreme Court. McMahon v. State of New York, Application to Stay
A related suit, Carter v. U.S. Department of Education, was brought by families alleging the staff cuts had crippled the Office for Civil Rights and stalled discrimination cases involving students with disabilities. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., denied a preliminary injunction in May 2025, finding the plaintiffs had not shown OCR had actually failed its statutory duties, even while acknowledging “substantial evidence” of disruption. The case has been stayed pending the outcome of McMahon.23Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Carter v. U.S. Department of Education
Student Data and the i-Ready Class Action
A newer front has opened around what schools and vendors do with student data. In December 2025, a putative class action was filed against Curriculum Associates, the maker of i-Ready, a widely used K-12 assessment and instruction platform. The lawsuit alleges the company collects sensitive student data, including race, gender, disability status, lunch eligibility, and detailed assessment responses, and shares it with third parties for commercial purposes without adequate parental notice or consent.24The Guardian. California Parents Sue i-Ready Over Student Data The claims span the Federal Wiretap Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and Massachusetts consumer protection law.25EdTech Law. M.C. v. Curriculum Associates
Curriculum Associates has moved to dismiss, calling the claims “legally meritless” and saying it does not sell student data, use it for advertising, or build commercial profiles on students. The company says it discloses its data practices to school and district customers and obtains consent through them.26Curriculum Associates. Litigation Statement As of mid-2026 the case was active, with briefing on the motion to dismiss underway.25EdTech Law. M.C. v. Curriculum Associates
Why These Cases Keep Hitting the Same Walls
All of this unfolds against a single Supreme Court decision from more than fifty years ago. In San Antonio v. Rodriguez (1973), the Court held that education is not a fundamental right under the federal Constitution, pushing education litigation into state courts. School funding has since been challenged in 45 of the 50 states, with plaintiffs prevailing roughly two-thirds of the time since 1989. Every state constitution contains some provision requiring the state to provide education, which is why cases like Leandro in North Carolina relied on state constitutional language rather than federal claims.27Education Law Center. Litigation in the States
Individual negligence claims against school districts for failing to teach children to read have historically fared poorly. The earliest notable case, Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified School District (1976), was rejected by a California appeals court on the grounds that “classroom methodology affords no readily acceptable standards of care, or cause, or injury.”28Education Week. Suing Schools Over the Right to Read Courts have generally refused to second-guess educational methods or assign blame for literacy outcomes shaped by factors outside a school’s control. That history is why cases like Ortiz’s are framed as negligence toward a specific student with diagnosed disabilities rather than as broad educational malpractice claims.
What has changed around the litigation is the political environment. The “science of reading” movement has given advocates a clear policy framework, and state legislatures have responded with retention requirements for third-graders who can’t read at grade level, phonics mandates, and dedicated funding for reading interventions. California passed AB 1454 in 2025 to push evidence-based reading instruction into schools statewide.29EdSource. Implementing Evidence-Based Reading Instruction Lawsuits produce settlement money and attention, which creates political pressure for legislation, which in turn shapes how the next round of lawsuits gets framed. Whether a federal court will ever recognize a constitutional right to literacy is still an open question, but the combination of legal pressure and shifting educational consensus has already changed how states approach what public education is supposed to deliver.