Public education has primarily been the responsibility of the states, and litigation relative to students’ right to education has traditionally been remanded to the states and lower courts. On April 23, 2020, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled—in the case of Gary B. v. Whitmer—that, according to the United States Constitution, students have “a fundamental right” to a “basic minimum education.” This decision sets resounding precedence across other court circuits. Similarly, cases such as A.C. by Waithe v. McKee and Williams et al. v. Reeves et al. have also centered on a vital, constitutional, and sociocultural query—do American students have a constitutional right to education? This paper argues that claims outlined in Gary B. v. Whitmer, A.C. by Waithe v. McKee and Williams et al. v. Reeves et al. are not aberrations but are inextricably coupled to historical and contemporary American narratives. Employing Narrative Political Framework (NPF) and Discursive Violence Analysis (DVA), this paper presents empirical qualitative data to illustrate the similarities and dissimilarities across the three lawsuits and how NPF and DVA can be used as tools to contextualize the social and political pretexts of educational policy and jurisprudence. This study contributes to the literature by contextualizing educational jurisprudence relative to these cases and expanding our knowledge of the current condition of public education and democracy in America.