Published on: June 22, 2026
An ATIXA Tip of the Week by Kayleigh Baker, J.D.
The Administration’s promise of a shuttered Department of Education (ED) may be one step closer to reality. On June 16, 2026, ED announced Interagency Agreements (IAAs) that shift IDEA-related enforcement responsibilities to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and civil rights enforcement functions to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
While the Administration presents these agreements as part of an effort to reduce bureaucracy, they raise significant legal and practical questions.
IDEA Enforcement to HHS
These changes affect the enforcement of Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, and the Age Discrimination Act, and they also have implications for NABITA’s behavioral intervention and BTAM threat management practitioners. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) covers special education and disability accommodations, which often intersect with behavioral intervention and threat assessment. Transferring IDEA to HHS could impact support services and multidisciplinary case management.
ED has historically administered IDEA through the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), which oversees funding, state monitoring, technical assistance, and compliance efforts related to the provision of special education services. The Administration claims that moving these responsibilities to HHS, which already manages numerous disability-related, health, and family support programs, will streamline services and reduce administrative overlap.
OCR Enforcement to DOJ
The second part of the announcement concerns civil rights enforcement—this is where Title IX and Title VI Coordinators should pay close attention. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has traditionally been responsible for civil rights enforcement.
However, over the past year, DOJ and ED have expanded their collaboration, including through initiatives such as the Special Investigations Team for Title IX investigations. DOJ already has oversight of Title IX and independent enforcement authority under several federal civil rights statutes. OCR investigations have often resulted in voluntary resolution agreements, while DOJ has maintained authority to pursue litigation, enforce court orders, intervene in certain matters, and receive referrals from federal agencies.
Implications
At this point, institutions should resist the temptation to draw sweeping conclusions. The most important fact is that the underlying laws have not changed. Title IX remains Title IX. Title VI remains Title VI. Section 504 remains Section 504. IDEA remains IDEA.
This could signal a more permanent shift toward a law-enforcement model that puts guns and badges behind federal civil rights enforcement. DOJ may take on a more direct role in carrying out civil rights enforcement activities traditionally associated with OCR. Whether that ultimately represents a fundamental shift in enforcement philosophy or simply a reorganization will depend on how complaint intake, investigative processes, staffing structures, and agency coordination evolve.
OCR currently operates under a Case Processing Manual that governs jurisdictional review, dismissal standards, investigation procedures, and resolution processes. If DOJ assumes a larger operational role, practitioners should pay close attention to whether this manual remains the governing framework. Any departure could affect investigative expectations, resolution practices, and institutional response strategies.
DOJ’s traditional litigation-focused role has often involved greater selectivity regarding the matters it pursues. The agency would likely need to maintain a broad intake and screening function similar to OCR’s current role rather than focusing solely on matters with the strongest litigation prospects. It will be worth watching whether DOJ adopts OCR’s broad intake model or a more selective enforcement approach.
One of the Administration’s stated goals is faster resolution of complaints. In theory, prompt case processing would benefit complainants and institutions alike. Long investigative delays create uncertainty, increase costs, and prolong disruption for everyone involved. If expedited processes remain fair, transparent, and consistent with established procedural safeguards, all parties would welcome more timely outcomes.
Is this move legally viable? These changes will likely face legal scrutiny. Although Secretary of Education Linda McMahon was quick to point out that both IDEA and civil rights laws predate ED and will also outlive ED, Congress has tied certain obligations directly to ED. Thus, any significant transfer of those responsibilities away from ED is likely to raise questions about statutory authority, congressional intent, and administrative process. As a result, portions of the plan may ultimately be challenged in court before implementation is complete.
For now, institutions should focus on compliance with existing legal obligations rather than speculation. Policies, procedures, and training should continue to be guided by current laws.
ATIXA and NABITA will monitor these developments and provide timely guidance to members on our listservs.
Not a member? Join ATIXA today, become a NABITA member, or reach out to inquiry@tngconsulting.com for tailored guidance.