Follow-Up: The Fight Over Maryland’s BYOD Policy Moves to Federal Court

On August 11, 2025, the question that began in Chesapeake Science Point Elementary’s hallways found its way into the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

What started as a policy handed down in an email—a requirement to either rent a school Chromebook or surrender your own to district “configuration”—has now been formalized in the language of federal pleadings and constitutional claims.

In a 33-page complaint supported by dozens of pages of exhibits, the plaintiffs lay out what they call a “coercive and unconstitutional condition” placed on the right to public education. The lawsuit challenges not only the policy itself, but the authority claimed to enforce it. At its heart is a simple but profound question:

Can a public school compel families to permanently alter and submit their personal property to ongoing government surveillance as a condition of attendance?

From Classroom Rule to Federal Case

When the district announced the BYOD policy, it framed the change as a matter of safety and compliance. The official rationale invoked the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), suggesting that federal law required device monitoring to protect students online.

But as we reported in our original article, CIPA’s actual requirements are narrower: network-level filtering for schools receiving certain federal funds. Nothing in the statute demands wiping a student’s personal files, binding a privately owned device to a government domain, or installing persistent monitoring software.

The complaint seizes on this gap between legal mandate and administrative choice. By conflating a local preference with federal necessity, the plaintiffs argue, the district created false legal authority for measures that intrude into private property and personal data.

The move to federal court was not the parents' first step, but a last resort. Court filings reveal that on July 22, 2025, a formal email detailing the policy’s constitutional implications was sent directly to both the Chesapeake Science Point administration and the Anne Arundel County Public Schools (AACPS) legal office. The email, which sought to open a dialogue and resolve the concerns without litigation, was met with silence. The district’s failure to respond, plaintiffs argue, left them with no alternative but to seek a remedy from the judiciary.

The Four Constitutional Fronts

The federal suit advances on multiple legal grounds:

• Fourth Amendment – That the policy constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure of a personal device without probable cause or individualized suspicion.
• Fourteenth Amendment – That it imposes a deprivation of liberty and property interests without due process of law.
• Maryland Declaration of Rights – That the state’s own constitutional privacy and property protections have been violated.
• State Privacy Statutes – That the policy authorizes data collection and monitoring beyond lawful limits.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief—specifically, an immediate halt to the policy before the school year and private device configuration begins.

The Mechanism of Control

Under the policy, “configuration” is not a one-time check. It is a transformation:

• All local files are deleted.
• The Chromebook is registered to the school domain.
• GoGuardian is installed, giving the school visibility into use both on and off campus.
• Removal of the software is prohibited for the duration of the student’s enrollment.

Once configured, the device ceases to be solely the property of the family; it becomes, in effect, a hybrid government-controlled machine—without compensation, opt-out, or independent oversight.

Why This Case Matters

Though it arises from a single school in Anne Arundel County, the outcome could ripple far beyond Maryland. If the court upholds the policy, it could embolden other districts to extend their reach into the private devices of students, parents, and potentially even staff, under the banner of “safety compliance.”

If the court strikes it down, it could reaffirm a boundary that many assumed was already settled: that the government cannot commandeer personal property without consent, cause, or judicial process.

The Next Decision

A motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is now pending before Judge Adam B. Abelson. That decision—whether to freeze the policy before the academic year begins—will be the first indication of how the judiciary views this collision between student privacy and administrative authority.

The stakes are no longer abstract. If the court declines to intervene, students may begin the school year with their personal devices erased and placed under constant monitoring. If it grants the TRO, it will mark the first legal recognition that this policy may have gone too far.

For now, the question that began as a parent’s objection to a line in a policy manual has become a test of the constitutional limits of school power in the digital age.