On September 23, 2025, the Honorable Mark A. Kearney of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that a plaintiff-mother may bring a private cause of action under civil rights laws to enforce the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (the “Act” or the “McKinney-Vento Act”). (Williams v. Cheltenham Sch. Dist., No. 25-3395, 2025 WL 2712217 (E.D. Pa. 2025)).
Background in the Case
A mother of school-age children experiencing homelessness initiated a private cause of action under federal civil rights laws against the Cheltenham School District (the “District”) to enforce the Act. By way of background, the mother enrolled her children in the District for a period of time without requesting a change in the children’s school, transportation, or enrollment status.
At some point during the students’ enrollment, the District’s Director of Student Services (the “Director”) initiated a residency investigation without prior notice. After the investigation, the Director unilaterally removed the children from enrollment in the schools without providing notice, a hearing, or an opportunity for appeal.
The Director alleged that an annual review process of McKinney-Vento eligible students warranted her residency investigation; however, the District did not explain what prompted the review, what rights the mother had under the McKinney-Vento Act, nor what policy authorized the Director’s investigation.
Claims
The mother sued the District and Director under federal civil rights laws alleging violations under the Act and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”). The District and Director filed a motion to dismiss the mother’s claims, claiming the mother cannot bring a private cause of action under federal civil rights laws to enforce the Act or FERPA.
The Court’s Decision
The Court dismissed the mother’s claim under FERPA, explaining Congress enacted FERPA to protect the privacy of student educational records and a parent(s)/guardian(s) right to inspect and review their child’s educational record and request corrections to inaccurate information contained in these records.
In support of its opinion, the Court cited to a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case decided in June of 2022, holding Congress did not create a private right of action under FERPA, nor is FERPA enforceable through federal civil rights laws. (Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (Pa. 2002)).
Despite the District and Director’s arguments pleading Congress did not expressly grant a private right of action under the Act, the Court disagreed, holding the mother has the right to bring a private cause of action under the federal civil rights laws to enforce the Act. In its decision, the Court turned to a recent decision out of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for support.
Similar to Williams, in Martin v. Piserchia, a mother enrolled her children in a school district under a homelessness designation pursuant to the Act, however the school district disputed her residency and denied her children enrollment in its schools.
The mother sued the school district and its McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Liaison under the Act, alleging the school district violated her federal civil rights by not enrolling her children, citing to the Act’s Pendency Provision, which requires a child to be immediately enrolled in a school in which enrollment is sought, pending final resolution of the dispute, including all available appeals.
In citing to Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzaga, the Court held the mother had enforceable rights under the Act, highlighting the Act provides homeless children and their parents rights.
Neighboring courts, including the Western and Middle District Courts of Pennsylvania, also persuaded the Court in Williams, in which a parent’s ability to proceed with a private action under the Act were recognized and upheld.
The Court in Williams determined the mother plead sufficient facts to plausibly find that the District and Director may have violated the mother’s rights under the McKinney-Vento Act when they disenrolled her children without following the proper notice, hearing, and appellate procedure, specifically stating, “[c]ongress gave each state ‘clear and unambiguous notice that, if it accepts federal funds, it may face private suits asserting an individual right.’”
Bottom Line For Schools
This case emphasizes two important considerations for school districts. First, this decision confirms that parents and guardians have the ability to bring federal action against school districts for alleged violations of the McKinney-Vento Act.
Second, this case suggests the importance of proper training and oversight of employees and administrators involved in student enrollment and residency disputes. In addition to the McKinney-Vento Act, Act 67 of 2024, requires school districts to adhere to certain procedural and notice requirements prior to disenrolling a student following a residency dispute.
School districts are encouraged to adopt sound practices and procedures to ensure that all obligations under the McKinney-Vento Act and Act 67 of 2024 are met and all parental rights are recognized during proceedings.
