Litigating the Right to Learn: Federal Courts, State Governance, Educational Equity, and the Constitutional Limits of Public Education

This study contributes to an emerging body of scholarship that positions legal research as a legitimate and generative paradigm for education policy inquiry. This manuscript presents cross-case findings from a multi-case discourse analysis of three federal education rights lawsuits: Gary B. v. Whitmer (Michigan), A.C. by Waithe v. McKee (Rhode Island), and Haymer et al. v. Reeves (Mississippi). Although these cases originated between 2016 and 2018, the constitutional questions they raised remain unresolved, and the educational conditions that compelled families to seek federal court intervention have only deepened. Employing the Narrative Policy Framework and Discursive Violence Analysis, four cross-cutting themes emerged: parents’ and students’ moral conviction of a federal constitutional guarantee of education; persistent systemic educational harms compounded across historical and policy contexts; the expectation of federal courts as guardians of educational rights; and the recurring tension between federal constitutional adherence and state governance of education. Collectively, these cases reveal how legal narratives serve as powerful policy tools and how discursive violence enables states to circumvent equitable educational responsibilities through strategically deployed authoritative language. These findings carry urgent implications for education policymakers, legal scholars, and researchers invested in the constitutional dimensions of educational equity.