The Constitutional Limits of Federal Authority in Education: Federalism, Faith, Ordered Liberty, and the Preservation of Local Self-Government

By the Hon. William Wagner (Ret.)

WFFC Distinguished Chair for Faith & Freedom, Spring Arbor University

Abstract

This Issue Brief contends that Federal involvement in education rests on unstable constitutional ground and that renewed efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (ED) highlight, rather than resolve, deep structural questions about federalism, ordered liberty, and religious freedom. Drawing on constitutional text, original meaning, historical practice, and Supreme Court precedent, it argues that education is a quintessential state function grounded in the police powers over health, safety, welfare, and morals. The Issue Brief then situates the White House’s 2025 executive order and related initiatives to wind down ED within this constitutional framework, noting both the potential alignment with federalism principles and the legal and political constraints under existing statutes. Finally, it explains why Christian educational leaders—operating schools, colleges, and homeschools as ministries of the church and family—have a particular stake in preserving local control and resisting a return to centralized educational governance, whether from the left or from a future right-leaning administrative state.

Introduction: Ordered Liberty, Biblical First Principles, and the Educational Question

The Constitution of the United States is not a mere power-granting instrument; it is a structural covenant designed to secure what the Founders understood as ordered liberty. At the heart of that design lies a Biblical and natural-law understanding of the human person as created in the image of God, endowed with dignity, moral agency, and responsibilities within the institutions of family, church, and community. Civil government is ordained to do justice, not to occupy every sphere of human life.

James Madison famously warned that because men are not angels, government requires both internal and external controls.1  Federalism and separation of powers supply those external controls by dividing authority both horizontally and vertically. In this constitutional architecture, the Federal government is a government of limited and enumerated powers; the states retain broad police powers, including those most closely connected to the moral and civic formation of citizens.

Education stands at the center of that formative work. From classical antiquity to the American Founding, education was understood not as a neutral delivery of technical knowledge but as the cultivation of virtue, reason, and citizenship. For Christian educators in particular, the task of education is inseparable from discipleship and worldview formation—teaching students to love God with heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love their neighbors as themselves.

Because education shapes the conscience and character of the next generation, the Framers deliberately left its governance with the states and local communities, where political authority remained closest to parents, churches, and civil society. The Federal Constitution is silent on education; the Tenth Amendment thus reserves educational authority to “the States respectively, or to the people.”2

This Issue Brief proceeds from that structural and theological premise. It first explains why there is no enumerated Federal power over education and why, historically, states have functioned as the primary “guardians of learning.” It then surveys the Supreme Court’s repeated affirmation of local and state primacy in educational governance. Against this backdrop, it analyzes recent efforts by the White House to dismantle much of the U.S. Department of Education and to return authority to the states, examining their constitutional significance and limits. Finally, it addresses why Christian educational leaders must engage these developments with both gratitude for renewed attention to federalism and caution regarding any continuing Federal leverage over religious education.

No Enumerated Federal Power over Education

Constitutional silence, the Tenth Amendment, historical practice, and judicial recognition of state primacy in education, all confirm that no enumerated constitutional power exists over education

Constitutional Silence and the Tenth Amendment

Article I, Section 8 enumerates Congress’s powers. Education does not appear on that list. Under the Tenth Amendment, “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”3  The structural rule is straightforward: absent an enumerated power, the Federal government has no authority to legislate directly in a field.

Because the Constitution is silent on education, its governance presumptively belongs to the states. That silence is not an oversight. It reflects the Founders’ judgment that education—deeply tied to moral formation, civic virtue, and local culture—fits naturally within the states’ retained police powers over “health, safety, welfare, and morals.”

From a Christian perspective, this allocation matters. Scripture assigns primary responsibility for the education of children to parents, supported by the church and community; civil authority serves, it does not supplant, these institutions. A Federal government wielding direct control over curriculum and values formation would invert this hierarchy. By limiting Federal power and reserving education to the states and people, the Constitution’s structure protects the freedom of Christian families and institutions to educate according to biblical conviction.

Historical Practice: The States as Guardians of Learning

Historical practice confirms this reading. From the Founding era forward, State constitutions universally address public education. Every state constitution includes provisions establishing or regulating public schooling. States build, fund, and administer K–12 systems, define graduation standards, and charter public universities, all without relying on any general federal power.

Founding statesmen emphasized education but located its governance in the states. Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Jay spoke passionately about the necessity of education to sustain republican government, yet they did not urge Federal control. Jefferson proposed public education systems at the state level. Madison warned against reading the “general welfare” language as a blank check to legislate in areas such as education, lest the Federal government’s limited character be “transmuted” into plenary authority.4

Federal non-involvement persisted for nearly a century. For almost 100 years after ratification, Federal participation in education was negligible. When Congress created a Department of Education in 1867, it vested only a statistical and advisory role in the new agency; by 1868, Congress downgraded it to an office within the Department of the Interior because of constitutional concerns about Federal intrusion into state prerogatives. The Federal government’s later expansion into education in the twentieth century reflected changing politics, not an alteration of the Constitution’s text.

Federal educational institutions rest on other enumerated powers. The U.S. Military Academy at West Point (1802) and other service academies arise under Congress’s war powers rather than any general education authority. Howard University (1867), founded in the District of Columbia, rests on the District Clause and on war powers as implemented through post–Civil War Reconstruction efforts. None of these examples constitute a freestanding Federal education power.

Judicial Recognition of Education as a State Function

The Supreme Court’s decisions consistently recognize education as a state and local responsibility, even while enforcing Federal constitutional limits against discriminatory state action.

In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, the Court held that education is “not among the rights afforded explicit protection under our Federal Constitution,” and rejected a claim that disparities in school funding triggered strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.5  While acknowledging the vital importance of education, the Court emphasized that its governance remained a matter of state design and policy.

In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court famously described education as “perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.”6  Brown did not federalize curriculum or school operation. It simply held that state-mandated racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause. Governance remained local; unconstitutional discrimination did not.

In Milliken v. Bradley, the Court underscored that “[n]o single tradition in public education is more deeply rooted than local control over the operation of schools.”7  Milliken refused to impose a metropolitan-wide desegregation plan absent proof of inter-district constitutional violations, emphasizing federalism and the importance of preserving local authority.

Taken together, these cases confirm what the constitutional text and historical practice already suggest: education is a quintessential state function. The Federal government may intervene to remedy specific constitutional violations, but it does not possess a general power to govern education.

Federalism, Local Self-Government, and Christian Educational Freedom

Federalism is not simply about institutional efficiency; it is a theological and anthropological safeguard. By leaving education primarily in the hands of states and local communities, the constitutional structure protects the space in which families, churches, and Christian schools exercise their God-given responsibilities and conscience.

Local Self-Government and Moral Formation

Local control aligns with the Christian understanding that parents bear primary responsibility for the moral and spiritual formation of their children. State and local authorities, being closer to families, are more accountable and more likely to reflect the values of the communities they serve. Centralization in Washington D.C. risks imposing uniform educational norms that may be hostile to Christian convictions on marriage, sexuality, human dignity, and truth.

Laboratories of Democracy and Pluralism

Federalism allows states to serve as laboratories of democracy, experimenting with different educational models—classical Christian schools, charter schools, homeschooling frameworks, faith-based universities, and traditional public schools. This pluralism fosters excellence and respects conscience. Federal efforts to standardize educational policy undercut this diversity and tend toward ideological conformity.

The Modern Administrative State and the Rise of Federal Educational Power

Despite the absence of enumerated authority, the Federal role in education expanded significantly in the twentieth century, particularly after World War II and during the Great Society era. Congress relied primarily on the Spending Clause and, to a lesser extent, expansive readings of the Commerce Clause, to justify programs such as Title I and the Higher Education Act.

The creation of the modern Department of Education as a cabinet-level agency in 1979 marked a decisive step toward administrative centralization. For much of the past half-century, ED has shaped K–12 and higher education through:

• conditional grants and aid programs;

• civil-rights enforcement (especially under Title VI and Title IX);

• regulatory guidance and “Dear Colleague” letters; and

• accreditation-related policies.

For Christian educational institutions, these developments have been a double-edged sword. On one hand, Federal civil-rights enforcement helped dismantle racial segregation and open doors of opportunity. On the other hand, Federal definitions of “nondiscrimination” have increasingly been interpreted to include contested concepts of sex, gender identity, and sexuality, sometimes in tension with biblical teaching.

The Anti-Commandeering Principle and Coercive Federal Spending

The Supreme Court’s anti-commandeering doctrine, articulated in New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, prohibits the Federal government from compelling states or their officials to administer Federal regulatory programs.8  While Congress may encourage state cooperation through conditional spending, such conditions cannot become coercive.

In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Court held that the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion crossed the line from encouragement to coercion by threatening states with the loss of existing Medicaid funding if they declined to expand coverage.9  Although the Court distinguished education funding as a smaller percentage of state budgets, the principle remains: federal leverage may not effectively put a “gun to the head” of the states.

In education, conditional spending has often functioned as de facto commandeering. States that refuse to adopt federal testing regimes, Title IX procedures, or civil-rights interpretations risk losing substantial funds. In practice, this leaves states with no realistic choice but compliance, even where the Federal conditions push beyond statutory or constitutional text.

For Christian educational leaders, this raises a sobering question: if Federal dollars always come with strings, and those strings increasingly carry ideological content, is continued dependence on Federal funds compatible with Christian institutional integrity?

The White House’s Efforts to Dismantle the Department of Education

Against this backdrop, the White House’s moves in 2025 to dismantle much of the Department of Education represent a significant development in the long-running debate over Federal authority in education.

The 2025 Executive Order and Policy Framework

On March 20, 2025, the President issued an executive order announcing his administration’s policy priority to dismantle ED and to “return education authority to the States.”10  The order directs the Secretary of Education to take “all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return education authority to the States,” while continuing to deliver essential services and benefits.

The White House characterized the order as part of a broader effort to “empower parents, states, and communities” and explicitly disavowed Federal support for programs promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or gender ideology with remaining ED funds.11   The executive order itself acknowledges that only Congress can formally abolish the Department under the 1979 Department of Education Organization Act, and thus instructs the Secretary to proceed “to the maximum extent permitted by law.”

Workforce Reductions and Program Transfers

In the months following the order, the Administration implemented large-scale staff reductions and began transferring key grant programs to other agencies. Press reports indicate that: ED’s workforce has been cut roughly in half through the dismissal of more than 1,300 employees;12 Additionally, six major grant programs—totaling over $30 billion in K–12 and post-secondary funding—are being shifted to the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, State, and Interior;13 Finally, the Office for Civil Rights has seen significant staff reductions and a reprioritization of enforcement, with increased focus on antisemitism and less on LGBTQ+ and DEI-oriented claims.14. Commentators across the ideological spectrum have noted that these steps closely track the Heritage Foundation's recommendations, which calls for shuttering ED and returning control of education to the states.15

Legal and Structural Constraints

Despite the bold rhetoric, the Administration’s efforts face important legal and structural limits:

Congressional Authority. While Congress arguably lacked constitutional authority to enact the 1979 statute, under this law only Congress can formally abolish the ED. The executive branch may reorganize functions and shrink the agency, but it cannot unilaterally repeal the statute’s mandate. Wholesale transfer of statutory functions to other agencies may require congressional approval.

Statutory Mandates. The ED administers major programs such as Title I, IDEA, and federal student loans. Even if program administration moves to other agencies, the underlying statutory commitments remain. Those statutes still empower the Federal government to attach conditions—potentially including civil-rights mandates—to billions in education funds. For each of those education policy statutory commitments, though, a question remains as to whether Congress lacked constitutional authority to enact the law.

Activist Judicial Review. Civil-rights groups and state attorneys general have signaled their intent to challenge aspects of the dismantling order, especially where they allege that the Administration is undermining protections for LGBTQ+ students.

Normative Assessment from a Faith-and-Freedom Perspective

For Christian educational leaders, the Administration’s moves present both an opportunity and a warning.

On the one hand, the explicit goal of returning education authority to the states aligns with the Constitution’s text and with a Christian understanding of parental and local responsibility. To the extent that these reforms successfully reduce Federal leverage over curriculum, religious liberty, and conscience, they may create space for Christian schools, colleges, and homeschools to flourish without intrusive Federal administrative oversight.

On the other hand, simply relocating programs or shrinking one Federal department does not automatically resolve the deeper constitutional problem: the continued Federal practice of attaching ideological conditions to funding. If Congress or future administrations use other agencies (e.g., HHS, Labor, State) to impose similar conditions on education-related funds, the threat to institutional religious freedom remains. Christian leaders should therefore welcome genuine de-federalization, while remaining wary of any reshuffled administrative structure that continues to centralize policy through different bureaucratic channels.

Implications for Christian Educational Leaders

For Christian K–12 schools, colleges, seminaries, and homeschool networks, these developments carry several practical and strategic implications.

Rethinking Dependence on Federal Funds

Many Christian institutions rely heavily on Federal student aid and grants. As Federal authorities increasingly use funding as a tool to enforce contested cultural norms, institutions must seriously evaluate whether continued reliance is compatible with obedience to Christ and institutional integrity. A constitutional order that rightly locates education in the states and local communities gives Christian institutions more room to develop sustainable, non-federal models of support.

B. Engaging State and Local Governance

If Federal authority diminishes, state and local arenas become even more important. Preliminarily, therefore, Christian leaders should prepare to increase engagement in state legislative processes on education. They must also remain vigilant, willing to fight for state-level protections for religious liberty and parental rights. Further, Christian leaders ought to seek to serve on local school boards and charter authorizers. Finally, they should help craft policies that respect pluralism and conscience. Federalism only protects liberty if the states themselves respect freedom of religion and the autonomy of Christian education.

Vigilance Against Ideological Re-Centralization

Finally, Christian leaders must remain vigilant. A conservative administration may reduce certain forms of Federal ideological pressure, but future administrations can reverse course. The long-term goal must be a constitutional settlement that truly respects the limited and enumerated nature of Federal power and robustly guards the freedom of parents and Christian institutions to educate according to biblical truth.

Concluding Thoughts

The American constitutional order establishes a Federal government of limited, enumerated powers and reserves educational authority to the states and the people. That structure reflects both a prudential political judgment and a deeper theological commitment to ordered liberty and the primacy of family, church, and local community in the moral formation of children.

The White House’s attempts to dismantle much of the Department of Education highlight renewed attention to these constitutional principles. Yet they also expose the stubborn persistence of Federal funding mechanisms and administrative habits that risk re-centralizing educational control in other institutional forms.

For Christian educational leaders, the path forward requires both constitutional clarity and spiritual discernment: clarity that Federal control over education lacks textual and structural warrant, and discernment to build educational ecosystems—rooted in faith and freedom—that can withstand shifting political winds while remaining faithful to the Lord of all truth.

Footnotes

1. THE FEDERALIST NO. 51 (James Madison).

2. U.S. CONST. amend. X.

3. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8.

4. THE FEDERALIST NO. 41 (James Madison).

5. San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973).

6. Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954).

7. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 741–42 (1974).

8. See New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992); Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).

9. Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 575–85 (2012).

10. Exec. Order No. ____ (Mar. 20, 2025) (directing the Secretary of Education to wind down the Department of Education and return authority to the States).

11. Fact Sheet, President Donald J. Trump Empowers Parents, States, and Communities to Improve Education Outcomes (Mar. 2025), WHITE HOUSE.

12. See, e.g., Aimee Picchi, Trump Wants to Dismantle the Department of Education. Here’s What the Agency Does, CBS NEWS (Mar. 12, 2025).

13. See Education Department Shedding Key Grant Programs in Latest Step to Close Agency, N.Y. POST (Nov. 18, 2025).

14. See Trump Has Ordered the Dismantling of the Education Department. Here’s What It Does, AP NEWS (Mar. 2025).

15. See Heritage Found., Press Release, Heritage Foundation Applauds Executive Order to End Department of Education (Mar. 20, 2025); FactCheck.org, A Guide to Project 2025 (Sept. 2024).

The author gratefully acknowledges the use of AI-assisted drafting tools (specifically OpenAI’s ChatGPT) in the preparation of this Issue Brief. All ideas, structural decisions, analysis, and final edits are solely the author’s own, and the author bears full responsibility for the content.