Legal counsel Mister Dennison briefed the Savannah‑Chatham County Board of Education on a range of recent U.S. Supreme Court and appellate decisions that he said carry practical consequences for district policy and exposure.

Dennison said the most immediately consequential ruling for school districts is Mahmood v. Taylor, a parental‑rights decision out of Montgomery County, Maryland, in which "the majority of the court sided with the parents on this case," he said, describing the decision as requiring districts to take greater steps to accommodate religious objections tied to curricular materials. He warned the district should expect more parental challenges tied to curriculum and opt‑out procedures.

Why it matters: Dennison told the board the ruling tightens the scrutiny on district choices about curriculum and opt‑outs and interacts with Georgia’s own Parents’ Bill of Rights and state book‑challenge processes. That combination, he said, means districts should expect more federal constitutional arguments paired with state statutory mechanisms.

Counsel also summarized rulings affecting government liability and civil‑rights claims. He described an Osseo area schools decision that moved courts toward a "deliberate indifference" standard for disability‑related claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504. "It's just not gonna be a special standard for schools," Dennison said, explaining lower standards that once required showing gross misjudgment or bad faith have narrowed and that districts must ensure accommodations are timely and documented.

Dennison reviewed additional decisions and trends: a reaffirmation that E‑rate funding is constitutional after the FCC Consumers Research litigation (preserving a major source of federal school technology funding), the Ames/Title VII sequencing decisions tied to anti‑discrimination standards (and their relationship to Bostock), and Williams v. Reed on administrative exhaustion when remedies are impossible to access. He also noted a Georgia Court of Appeals opinion in Wilson v. Anderson that found factual disputes sufficient to potentially overcome official‑immunity defenses in a bullying‑related stabbing, a decision Dennison described as raising stakes for compliance with safety and investigative obligations.

Context and cautions: Dennison emphasized the court landscape is not uniform — some rulings expand parental or religious claims while others preserve agency and funding authority — and advised the district to monitor litigation closely. He also flagged several cases that either produced unanimous holdings on narrow points (e.g., the Osseo decision) or were sent back after a 4–4 split (an Oklahoma charter‑school case), leaving some questions unresolved.

Next steps: Dennison said district lawyers will continue to track certiorari-stage cases and state high‑court developments and will identify policy adjustments or operational steps the district should take to reduce legal exposure or to implement newly clarified rights or duties.