The purpose of this paper was to analyze the court case Pontiac v. Spellings, a legal challenge to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act filed in 2005. The methodology was to examine and analyze the briefs filed and the court decisions to analyze the legal arguments made by the parties to the lawsuit. The results were that the U.S. Circuit Court for the Sixth Circuit found that the language of the NCLB Act was ambiguous and did not give clear notice to the states and school districts regarding funding. The U.S. Secretary of Education appealed the court decision. States and school districts concluded that they did not have to pay for implementing provisions of the NCLB Act unless those funds were provided by the federal government. The case raised questions about future spending for education and spending priorities. Should federal education funding be increased?