Former DeKalb County and Evanston/Skokie superintendent Devon Horton is scheduled for an October 21 federal trial over allegations involving school-district contracts, kickbacks, purchasing-card misuse and tax evasion.
Editorial Note
This article examines unresolved federal criminal allegations against former superintendent Devon Horton and three co-defendants. Horton has pleaded not guilty, and none of the charges described in the federal indictment has been proven at trial.
Separate state criminal allegations reported in Georgia are not part of the October federal trial and are outside the scope of this article.
Former DeKalb County School District Superintendent Devon Horton is scheduled to stand trial on October 21, 2026, in a federal case arising from his previous leadership of Evanston/Skokie School District 65 in Illinois.
A court filing reported by The Daily Northwestern says the jury trial is expected to last approximately three weeks. Horton and three other defendants were named in a 17-count federal indictment involving alleged wire fraud, theft or embezzlement from a federally funded organization and federal tax evasion.
Prosecutors accuse Horton of using his position as District 65 superintendent to approve contracts involving businesses connected to associates and then receiving portions of district payments through alleged kickbacks.
The indictment also accuses him of misusing a district purchasing card for personal expenses and concealing taxable income allegedly generated through the contracting arrangements and card purchases.
Horton has pleaded not guilty. The indictment represents the government’s allegations, not a finding of guilt, and prosecutors must prove each charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
What the Federal Indictment Alleges
A federal grand jury returned the indictment against Horton, Antonio Ross, Samuel Ross and Alfonzo Lewis in October 2025.
According to the indictment, the alleged conduct occurred primarily between 2020 and 2023 while Horton served as superintendent of District 65.
Horton’s duties included reviewing vendor proposals, executing professional-services contracts and approving invoices submitted for payment. Prosecutors allege that he used this authority to benefit businesses connected to the other defendants.
The businesses identified in the indictment include Connecting the Dots, Asset Protection and New Flight 35. Horton also owned a separate company named Altering the Education Xpectation, LLC.
Prosecutors allege that some proposals or invoices falsely represented that services had been provided or failed to disclose Horton’s alleged personal or economic interest in the businesses involved.
The defense will be entitled to challenge the government’s interpretation of the contracts, communications, invoices and financial transactions when the case reaches trial.
Alleged Contracting and Kickback Scheme
The indictment describes multiple District 65 professional-services agreements involving companies associated with Horton’s co-defendants.
Prosecutors allege that Horton approved contracts and invoices connected to those companies while failing to disclose relevant personal and financial relationships.
The government further alleges that after District 65 issued certain payments, portions of the money were transferred to Horton.
For example, the indictment describes an approximately $17,250 District 65 payment connected to an Asset Protection invoice and an alleged $5,000 payment to Horton shortly afterward. It also describes an approximately $8,500 district payment connected to New Flight 35 and an alleged $3,000 payment to Horton several days later.
Those individual transactions form part of a larger alleged scheme. They do not independently establish guilt, and the prosecution must demonstrate that the payments were knowingly connected to fraudulent contracts or improper financial benefits.
The trial is likely to involve invoices, bank records, emails, vendor proposals and testimony from people familiar with the contracts.
Allegations Involving Another School District
One count concerns work allegedly connected to Chicago Public Schools.
The indictment says Horton owned Altering the Education Xpectation and alleges that an invoice falsely represented that the company had provided professional services to Chicago Public Schools.
This part of the case is narrower than the allegations involving District 65, but prosecutors appear to view it as another example of the financial relationships among Horton and his co-defendants.
The government will still need to establish that the invoice was false and that Horton knowingly participated in the alleged fraud.
District Purchasing-Card Allegations
The indictment contains two counts specifically addressing Horton’s use of a District 65 procurement card.
District policy permitted the superintendent to use the card for purchases and travel expenses that benefited the school system and served a valid public purpose. Personal purchases were prohibited.
Prosecutors allege that Horton knowingly used the card for personal benefit during portions of 2022 and 2023.
The indictment identifies alleged purchases involving personal meals, gift cards, vehicle expenses and travel. Each of the two counts alleges misuse involving at least $5,000, but the charging document does not assign one simple combined total to every questioned transaction.
This wording is important. The government must prove that the purchases were personal, unauthorized and knowingly charged to the district. The presence of an expense on a district card does not, by itself, resolve whether it had a legitimate business purpose.
The allegations nevertheless raise an important governance question: who independently reviews the superintendent’s expenses when the superintendent is also responsible for overseeing much of the district’s financial administration?
Federal Tax-Evasion Charges
The final two counts accuse Horton of attempting to evade federal income taxes for 2022 and 2023.
Prosecutors allege that he failed to report income connected to alleged kickback payments and personal benefits received through district-funded purchases.
The government must prove more than an inaccurate tax return. Federal tax-evasion charges generally require evidence that the defendant willfully attempted to evade a tax that was legally owed.
The defense may challenge whether the disputed funds constituted taxable income, whether Horton knowingly failed to report them and whether the government calculated the alleged tax obligation correctly.
Horton’s Move to DeKalb County
Horton left District 65 in 2023 and became superintendent of DeKalb County School District in Georgia.
The federal indictment concerns alleged conduct associated primarily with his Illinois tenure. It does not accuse him of carrying out the same alleged scheme with DeKalb County funds.
After the federal charges became public, the DeKalb County Board of Education placed Horton on administrative leave. The board later accepted his resignation.
The district also reviewed financial activity connected to his time in Georgia. Such a review was a precautionary response to the indictment and did not independently establish that misconduct occurred in DeKalb County.
This distinction should remain clear. Allegations involving one school system may justify closer scrutiny by a later employer, but they do not prove that wrongdoing occurred in both districts.
District 65 Says Other Employees Were Not Implicated
Evanston/Skokie School District 65 published an executive summary and FAQ after the indictment was announced.
The district said the allegations included unauthorized kickback payments connected to contracts Horton executed, undisclosed consulting work involving another public school district and alleged misuse of his district-issued purchasing card.
District 65 also said that no current or former board member or employee other than Horton was criminally implicated and that district leaders had cooperated with the federal investigation.
The district’s statement does not determine whether Horton committed the alleged offenses. It does, however, provide important context about what the school system says it knew and how it responded once the investigation became public.
How the Alleged Scheme Exposed Oversight Risks
The allegations illustrate how weaknesses can emerge when too much authority is concentrated in one senior official.
A superintendent may participate in selecting vendors, approving contracts, confirming that services were completed and authorizing invoices. When those functions are not independently reviewed, an improper relationship can be difficult to detect.
Strong financial controls separate key responsibilities.
The official recommending a vendor should not have unchecked authority over every later stage of payment. Vendors should disclose their ownership, subcontractors and relationships with district decision-makers. Someone independent of the superintendent should verify that contracted services were actually delivered.
Conflict-of-interest disclosures are also essential.
A personal relationship between a district official and a vendor does not automatically make a contract unlawful. The risk arises when the relationship is hidden, the official participates in the decision and the official may receive a direct or indirect benefit.
Disclosure allows the board, legal counsel or finance department to determine whether the administrator must recuse themselves.
Superintendent Expenses Need Independent Review
School boards frequently rely on superintendents to manage district finances, but that structure can create a gap when the superintendent’s own expenses require scrutiny.
A finance employee who reports to the superintendent may hesitate to question purchases made by the district’s highest-ranking administrator.
Districts can reduce that pressure by assigning superintendent expense reviews to the board chair, finance committee, internal auditor or another official who does not report directly to the superintendent.
Each transaction should include a receipt and a documented business purpose. Gift cards, personal travel patterns, missing receipts, unusual restaurant charges and vehicle expenses should receive additional review.
This type of oversight is not an accusation against school leaders. It is a basic protection whenever one person has access to public funds and broad organizational authority.
What DeKalb County Should Examine
Because the federal investigation was not public when Horton was hired, an ordinary criminal background check may not have revealed it.
Even so, DeKalb County should consider whether executive hiring procedures can be strengthened.
A superintendent review may include previous board records, audits, vendor contracts, reference interviews and the candidate’s relationships with consultants who may later seek district work.
The district should also determine whether any businesses or individuals connected to Horton received contracts, employment or other financial benefits during his DeKalb tenure.
A professional connection alone would not establish wrongdoing. The purpose of a review is to identify undisclosed relationships or unusual patterns requiring closer examination.
What School Boards Should Review Now
The allegations remain unresolved, but school boards do not need to wait for a verdict before examining their own financial controls.
Boards should know the value of contracts a superintendent can approve without a public vote and whether multiple smaller contracts can be issued to the same vendor without triggering additional oversight.
Vendor forms should require disclosure of owners, affiliated companies, subcontractors and personal relationships with district officials.
Districts should also compare paid invoices with proof that the work occurred. A signed invoice does not confirm that training was delivered, reports were produced or consulting services were completed.
Employees who question a transaction involving the superintendent need a reporting path that does not require them to complain exclusively through the superintendent’s office.
Finally, superintendent purchasing-card statements should receive the same or greater scrutiny applied to other employees.
Why the October Trial Matters
The October 21 trial will provide the first opportunity for the federal government to present its full case to a jury.
Much of the currently available information comes from the indictment, which describes the prosecution’s theory but does not include every piece of evidence or the defense’s complete response.
Prosecutors may present financial records, contracts, emails, invoices and witness testimony. Horton’s attorneys will be able to cross-examine witnesses, challenge the admissibility and interpretation of evidence and present a defense.
The expected three-week schedule suggests that jurors may need to evaluate numerous transactions and documents.
Court dates can change because of pretrial motions, evidentiary disputes, plea negotiations or scheduling decisions. As of the latest verified reporting, the federal trial is scheduled to begin October 21, 2026.
Key Takeaways
Former DeKalb County and Evanston/Skokie superintendent Devon Horton is scheduled for a three-week federal jury trial beginning October 21, 2026.
The federal indictment contains 17 counts naming Horton and three co-defendants. The allegations involve wire fraud, theft or embezzlement involving a federally funded organization and tax evasion.
Prosecutors claim Horton approved contracts involving companies connected to associates, received alleged kickback payments, misused a district purchasing card and failed to report certain alleged financial benefits as income.
Horton has pleaded not guilty, and the government must prove every charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case highlights the need for vendor disclosures, independent review of superintendent expenses, separation of contracting duties and verification that paid services were actually delivered.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has Devon Horton been convicted?
No. Horton has pleaded not guilty, and the charges have not been proven at trial.
When is the federal trial scheduled?
The trial is scheduled to begin October 21, 2026, and is expected to last approximately three weeks. The date may still change.
How many counts are in the indictment?
The indictment contains 17 counts naming Horton and three co-defendants. Horton is identified in each count, although the other defendants vary by count.
What businesses are identified in the indictment?
The indictment identifies Connecting the Dots, Asset Protection, New Flight 35 and Horton’s company, Altering the Education Xpectation, LLC.
Do the federal allegations involve DeKalb County funds?
The federal case primarily concerns Horton’s previous leadership of District 65 in Illinois. A DeKalb review does not itself establish that similar misconduct occurred in Georgia.
Are Horton’s separate Georgia charges part of this trial?
No. Separate state charges reported in Georgia are unrelated to the federal financial case and are not part of the October 21 trial.
Final Thoughts
The charges against Devon Horton remain allegations. The October trial will determine whether prosecutors can prove that he used his authority over public-school contracts and expenses for personal financial benefit.
The broader governance lessons do not depend on the verdict.
School districts entrust superintendents with significant authority, but that authority should never eliminate independent review. Contract selection, invoice approval, expense auditing and conflict-of-interest enforcement should involve more than one person.
Oversight is not evidence of distrust. It is part of responsible stewardship whenever public money is controlled by senior officials.
A strong district does not depend solely on the integrity of one leader. It builds systems capable of detecting problems, documenting decisions and protecting public resources regardless of who occupies the superintendent’s office.
Support New To Education
New To Education publishes independent reporting and analysis on educational law, school leadership, financial accountability and policies affecting students, employees and communities.
Readers can support this work by sharing our articles, joining the New To Education community and exploring the educational and professional services available through our platform.
https://www.newtoeducation.com
Related Articles
Judson ISD Investigation Alleges Toxic Leadership, Financial Mismanagement and Reporting Failures
https://www.newtoeducation.com/view-blog/judson-isd-investigation-alleges-toxic-leadership-financial-mismanagement-and-reporting-failures-6a64db203b83b
NYC Council Threatens Subpoena Over Nearly $13 Billion in Education Contracts
https://www.newtoeducation.com/view-blog/nyc-council-threatens-subpoena-over-nearly-13-billion-in-education-contracts-6a5740926c091
Why New To Education Publishes Educational Law and Policy Coverage
https://www.newtoeducation.com/view-blog/why-new-to-education-publishes-educational-law-and-policy-coverage-6a5f3e263612e
Sources
U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Indictment in United States v. Devon Horton, Antonio Ross, Samuel Ross and Alfonzo Lewis
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/media/1422686/dl?inline=
Evanston/Skokie School District 65 — Federal Indictment of Former Superintendent Dr. Devon Horton
https://www.district65.net/news4/federal-indictment-of-former-superintendent-dr-devon-horton
The Daily Northwestern — October Trial Scheduled for Former District 65 Superintendent Devon Horton
https://dailynorthwestern.com/2026/02/11/city/october-trial-scheduled-for-former-d65-superintendent-devon-horton-embezzlement-fraud-case/
FOX 5 Atlanta — Trial Date Set for Former DeKalb School Superintendent Devon Horton
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/trial-date-set-former-dekalb-school-superintendent-devon-horton
