School days are upon us again, and a new school year brings new laws, new rules, and new risks for colleges, universities, and secondary schools. Below, we break down some of the developments that matter most. As always, Wyche’s Education Law Team is here to help school leaders at every level, from preschool to postsecondary. [1]
- Trump Administration Doubles Down on Prohibiting the Use of Race-Based Preferences in Admissions and Financial Aid Decisions.
Building on the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and a series of subsequent executive orders targeting diversity-related programs in education, the Trump Administration has now turned to the tax code. On September 3, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the IRS issued proposed regulations that would strip K-12 through graduate-level private schools of federal tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) if they adopt, maintain, or enforce a policy or practice that permits preferences on the basis of race, color, or national or ethnic origin. The proposed rule would apply to admissions, scholarships, financial aid, athletics, and other programming.
Schools would still be permitted to use race-neutral criteria such as family income, geographic location, first-generation status, individual hardship, military family status, and academic merit in admissions and financial aid decisions. The proposal would also allow private schools to continue to maintain religious missions and select students based on genuine religious affiliation.
The proposed rule is subject to a 60-day comment period, and if finalized, would apply to taxable years beginning on or after May 31, 2027.
The federal government is also actively enforcing its position through investigations. On September 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Education announced joint investigative findings that the University of California, Berkeley School of Law deliberately discriminated against white and Asian applicants in its admissions process in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the holding in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which banned race discrimination in higher education. The investigation found that Berkeley Law continued to use race, essay prompts, and other tactics to advance admissions diversity goals after SFFA, including asking applicants to identify their race so they could be grouped by “primary identity.” The agencies reported that in 2025, black applicants had 5.8 times higher odds of admission than comparable white applicants. The DOJ announced its plans to pursue settlement negotiations with noncompliant institutions and, if necessary, to file suit — signaling that enforcement in this area is likely to intensify.
- New South Carolina Student Discipline Requirements for Firearms and Weapon-Related Threats
On May 18, 2026, Governor McMaster signed Act No. 193 (S.B. 416) into law, making significant changes to South Carolina’s K-12 student discipline framework for public and charter schools. The law amends S.C. Code Ann. § 59-63-235 to require mandatory expulsion of no less than one year for any student determined to have knowingly brought a firearm to school or any setting under school board jurisdiction — with the addition of “knowingly” limiting the mandate to intentional conduct. The board of trustees or district superintendent retains case-by-case authority to modify the expulsion period, and expelled students must still be afforded access to alternative or virtual educational services and referred to the local Department of Juvenile Justice office.
Act No. 193 also creates an entirely new provision, S.C. Code Ann. § 59-63-237, authorizing expulsion for up to one academic year for students who knowingly and willfully convey a threat of bodily harm by means of a weapon. The provision applies both to written and electronic communications conveying a threat. Before a student may be expelled under this section, the hearing authority must find that the threat was directed at specific individuals or a school, that an ordinary person would reasonably expect violence, that the student had the capacity to carry it out, and that the threat caused a material and substantial disruption to school operations. The same alternative-education and DJJ-referral requirements apply.
Finally, the law amends S.C. Code Ann. § 59-63-210 to clarify the practical scope of expulsion and suspension. Expulsion now explicitly bars a student from entering school grounds, attending any school functions, or riding a school bus for the duration of the expulsion, except for a prearranged conference with an administrator; suspension carries parallel restrictions. Expelled and suspended students may still enroll in alternative education programs, including adult education and virtual programming. School districts should review their policies and procedures to ensure compliance with these changes.
- State Scholarships for Private School Education
State budget and scholarship funding should also be on schools’ radar this year. The Education Scholarship Trust Fund (“ESTF”) program, originally created in 2023, was partially struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court in September 2024 on the ground that using ESTF funds for private school tuition violated the state constitution. The General Assembly responded in 2025 by enacting S.62, which established a new trust fund for private school scholarships. The scholarship amount for the 2026-2027 school year is $7,634 per student, and at least 15,000 students will receive awards. To qualify for consideration, families must have a household income that does not exceed 500% of the federal poverty guidelines.
Independent schools should pay close attention to the compliance conditions that come with participation. Schools that choose to enroll scholarship recipients must comply with requirements related to approval, health and safety, background checks, testing, reporting, audits, and conflicts of interest. At the same time, the ESTF statute provides that “nonpublic education service providers” are not agents of the state or federal government and are not required to alter their creeds, practices, admissions policies, or curriculum to accept ESTF payments. Public school districts and public charter schools should also follow the program because expanded scholarship participation may affect enrollment, transfers, contracted services, transportation, and community expectations.
- New Single-Sex Restroom, Changing Facility, and Housing Requirements
Governor McMaster signed the South Carolina Student Physical Privacy Act (Act No. 152, H.B. 4756) into law on May 15, 2026. The Act requires all multioccupancy restrooms and changing facilities at public K–12 schools and public institutions of higher learning to be designated for use by members of only one biological sex at a time — whether permanently, temporarily, or on an event basis — and prohibits a person of the opposite sex from entry. Schools and institutions must also provide at least one single-user restroom and changing facility or accommodation. For overnight lodging, no student may be required to share sleeping quarters with a member of the opposite sex, and public institutions of higher learning must offer students the option to be housed only with persons of the same sex. Limited exceptions apply for custodial or maintenance work, coaching staff when no one is undressed, medical assistance, and emergencies.
Noncompliance carries significant financial consequences: the State Board of Education may withhold 25% of General Assembly-appropriated operating funds from noncompliant K–12 districts, and the Commission on Higher Education may withhold 25% from noncompliant public institutions of higher learning.
Although the Act applies by its terms only to public schools and public institutions of higher learning, private schools should not overlook it. The Act reflects a broader legislative direction in South Carolina on sex-based facility and program designations. Private schools that host public school students for joint events, share facilities with public institutions, or participate in public-school-sponsored overnight activities may need to account for these requirements in those settings. Private schools should also be aware that the Save Women’s Sports Act already requires private K–12 and private postsecondary athletic teams to comply with biological-sex-based team designations when their students or teams compete against public schools or institutions.
South Carolina Campus Safety Bill
South Carolina’s new campus safety law is another higher-education-specific development, although limited only to the state’s public institutions. Beginning with the 2027-28 school year, public institutions of higher learning must develop and implement a safety training program for new students, administered during orientation or within the first thirty days of the student’s arrival on campus. The required topics include personal safety, emergency procedures, access to campus security services and emergency alerts, sexual assault and dating-violence prevention and response, Title IX rights and reporting procedures, behavioral intervention or threat-assessment teams, bystander intervention, safe reporting, mental-health resources, and crisis-response protocols.
The law also creates reporting obligations. Public colleges and universities must submit annual reports to the Commission on Higher Education, and technical colleges must submit annual reports to the State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education, summarizing the training program, delivery methods, and associated materials. Also beginning with the 2027-28 school year, institutions must submit federal security reports and summary analyses to the appropriate state higher education body and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division by October 31 each year.
[1] This update is not legal advice. Please consult an attorney for guidance on your particular situation.
