.

Legal Updates for Special Education Law

Legal Update for Special Education Law – Updates from the U.S. Department of Education

Legal Update for Special Education Law – December 2025

December 1, 2025

by Christopher J. Conrad

The Dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education Continues

The Trump Administration is continuing its efforts to shutter the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) by delegating the responsibility of administering several billions of dollars allocated for certain programs to other federal agencies. On Tuesday, November 18, 2025, the DOE issued a press release announcing six new interagency agreements (IAAs) with the Departments of Labor (DOL), Interior (DOI) and Health and Human Services (HHS) to “ensure efficient delivery of funded programs, activities, and move closer to fulfilling the President’s promise to return education to the states.” The stated purpose of these new IAAs is to “streamline federal education activities on the legally required programs, reduce administrative burdens, and refocus programs and activities to better serve students and grantees.” 

Of particular note for K-12 schools, the DOE and DOL are establishing the Elementary and Secondary Education Partnership. With this new Partnership, the DOL states it “will take on a greater role in administering federal K-12 programs, ensuring these programs are better aligned with workforce and college programs to set students up for success at every part of their education journey.” Further, the DOL states it “will manage competitions, provide technical assistance, and integrate [DOE’s] programs with the suite of employment and training programs DOL already administers.” And according to a related Fact Sheet issued jointly by the DOE and the DOL, the agencies “will utilize available statutory authorities to empower parents and states, promote innovation, and deliver process improvements in pursuit of better outcomes for students in elementary and secondary education.”

The Partnership effectively will result in the DOL overseeing one of the largest streams of federal funding for K-12 schools, including Title I funding dedicated to schools serving low-income communities. The joint Fact Sheet makes clear that the following programs, among others, are now included in the Partnership:

Title I, Part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies
Title I, Part B: Improving Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged—State Assessment Grants
Title I, Part C: Education of Migratory Children
Title I, Part D: Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent or At-Risk 

The agencies have given assurance that states will continue to receive all formula funds, including Title I funding that supports low-income students; however, the states will now receive these funds from the DOL, not the DOE. And the agencies stated, “[t]here is no anticipated adverse impact on eligible agencies, entities, and institutions, as… “[a]ll programs will continue to be administered in accordance with the applicable statutory requirements.”

For now, the DOE will retain responsibility for administering IDEA-funding for students with disabilities. As well, the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights remains more or less intact—although staffing within the Office has been greatly reduced by layoffs and voluntary departures—and the DOE will continue to investigate complaints of disability discrimination. Still, DOE Secretary Linda McMahon has expressed publicly, including during her confirmation hearing, her belief that HHS eventually could take over the role of enforcing disability rights. 


Legal Update for Special Education Law – December 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.