Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
4/8/2026
ACE Comments on Workforce Pell Proposed Rule (Apr. 8, 2026)
The American Council on Education (ACE) along with 38 higher education associations, sent comments to the Office of Postsecondary Education regarding the Department of Education’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking titled “Accountability in Higher Education and Access Through Demand-Driven Workforce Pell: Pell Grant Exclusion Relating to Other Grant Aid; and Workforce Pell Grants.” The associations suggest, among other things, that (1) students enrolled in a program should not count in the job placement rate, (2) basic elements of an appeals process should be standardized, and (3) the Department should abide by the Master Calendar, which would result in an implementation deadline of July 1, 2027 at the earliest.
Topics:
Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Higher Education Act (HEA) | Students
Date:
4/8/2026
ACE Response to RFI on Classifying Student Athletes as Employees (Apr. 8, 2026)
The American Council on Education (ACE) along with five other higher education associations, sent a letter to Chairman Cassidy of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in response to his request for information on “Stabilizing College Sports and Preserving Opportunities for Athletes.” The associations write that “treating student-athletes as employees under the NLRA or the FLSA has deeply troubling implications for the continued viability of intercollegiate athletics.” The comments also outline concerns regarding the potential need for increased employees, increased costs, and compliance with Department of Labor regulations.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Student Athlete Issues | Students
Date:
4/7/2026
Court Grants TRO for Plaintiff Interveners in Lawsuit Challenging the ACTS Survey (Apr. 7, 2026)
After a coalition of states sued the Department of Education alleging its Admissions Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) survey was unlawful, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, and others moved to intervene in the case and sought a temporary restraining order blocking the survey. After granting the parties’ motion to intervene for the limited purpose of considering their request for a TRO, the court granted the TRO. For institutions covered by the order, which includes AAU member institutions and private-nonprofit colleges in several states, the TRO (1) extends the deadline to complete the ACTS survey through April 14, 2026, and (2) enjoins the Department from enforcing the survey completion deadlines of March 18, 2026, March 31, 2026, or April 8, 2026 against those institutions.
Topics:
Admissions | Students
Date:
4/6/2026
Department of Education Releases Proposals for Upcoming Accreditation Negotiated Rulemaking Session (Apr. 6, 2026)
In preparation for an upcoming negotiated rulemaking session set to begin April 13, 2026, the Department of Education released an eight-page summary of its larger 151-page proposal to revise the regulations governing accreditation and the recognition process. The proposed revisions reflect the Administration’s priorities from Executive Order “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education” and seek to “realign” the criteria for recognition of accreditors. The initial draft includes proposals to (1) require accreditors to use program-level student outcome measures and identity minimum expectations related to return on investment; (2) modify regulations on “faculty standards” to include “support for and appropriate prioritization of intellectual diversity”; (3) “presume the transferability of credits earned at another institution toward general education requirements”; and (4) require accreditors to require institutional compliance with all Federal and State laws “including the prohibition of preferential treatment based on protected characteristics, such as race-based scholarships or programs, and preferential hiring or promotion practices.” The list of negotiators chosen to serve on the committee can be found here.
Topics:
Accreditation | Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act
Date:
4/6/2026
Department of Education Rescinds Provisions of Title IX Resolution Agreements from Prior Administrations (Apr. 6, 2026)
The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that it has rescinded provisions of resolution agreements from prior administrations, stating that portions of the agreements were based on “heavy-handed manipulation of Title IX.” OCR wrote that it will no longer monitor or enforce the agreements that were reached with five school districts and Taft College.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination
Date:
4/3/2026
Student Defense Releases “Student AI Bill of Rights” and Calls for Adoption from Higher Education Institutions (Apr. 3, 2026)
The organization Student Defense, as part of its SHAPE (Safeguarding Higher-Ed through AI Practices & Ethics) AI Initiative, released a “Student AI Bill of Rights” and called on higher education institutions to adopt this framework to better protect students as AI continues to transform the higher ed landscape. The articles within the bill of rights include: (1) the right to transparency and “notice”; (2) the right to human oversight and appeal; (3) the right to data sovereignty and intellectual property; (4) the right of all students to safely use AI; and (5) the right to share in AI and its benefits.
Topics:
Data Privacy | Ethical Obligations of Higher Education Lawyers | Ethics | General Counsel | Privacy & Transparency
Date:
4/3/2026
Urgent National Action to Save College Sports – The White House (Apr. 3, 2026)
Executive Order: “Urgent National Action to Save College Sports.” This Order directs federal agencies, beginning August 1, 2026, to evaluate whether universities that violate key athletics rules, particularly around pay-for-play (including NIL arrangements), transfer policies, and eligibility limits, should remain eligible for federal funding, while also encouraging national governing bodies to adopt standardized rules such as a five-year participation window, structured transfer limits, and protections against improper financial inducements and agent misconduct. The order emphasizes preserving the financial viability of non-revenue programs, especially women’s and Olympic sports, amid what it characterizes as a “chaotic” system driven by court rulings and inconsistent state laws, and calls on Congress to enact comprehensive legislation to provide long-term stability. The Order further directs the Administrator of General Services and the Department of Education to increase data collection across college athletics to ensure compliance. The White House also issued a Fact Sheet with the Order.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Athletics Operations | Gender Equity in Athletics | Student Athlete Issues | Students
Date:
4/3/2026
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Education (D. Mass. Apr. 3, 2026)
Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, a coalition of states, sued the Department of Education alleging that the Department’s new Admissions Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) survey is contrary to law, exceeds the Department’s statutory authority, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court held that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their APA arbitrary and capricious claim, finding that the Department “changed its historical position, and rejected multiple comments expressing concern, solely in order to achieve an arbitrary and unexplained deadline.” The court noted the Department’s failure to consider alternatives such as phased implementation or pilot testing was further evidence of the arbitrary and capricious nature of the agency’s action. The court also found that plaintiffs had demonstrated they would face irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction was not granted, given the significant administrative burdens and potential enforcement risks. The preliminary injunction blocks the Department from enforcing the reporting requirements against public institutions within the 17 plaintiff states.
Topics:
Admissions | Students
Date:
3/31/2026
Johnson v. Georgetown University (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2026)
Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, the former Assistant Director at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service, sued the university and 12 other defendants alleging Title VII discrimination, retaliation and other claims, after she was hired and terminated a month later after social media posts she made eight years prior describing her “‘hat[red]’ for Zionists” went viral. The court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against the university finding that plaintiff had failed to plausibly allege discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin and that her tort claims could not proceed due to procedural and substantive defects. While plaintiff argued the university had deviated from its probation policy in terminating her so swiftly, the court disagreed finding the policy “clearly afford[ed] the university the right to fire an employee for behavior that her department deem[ed] ‘unacceptable’.” The court also dismissed with prejudice plaintiff’s claims against the other defendants with the exception of her claims against Canary Mission. Because Canary Mission refused to appear in the case, and did not move to dismiss plaintiff’s claims, the court permitted plaintiff to consider whether to seek a default judgment against it.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Retaliation | Social Media | Technology
Date:
3/31/2026
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, et al. (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2026)
Memorandum Opinion Granting Plaintiff’s Application for Enforcement. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as part of its investigation into possible discrimination against Jewish employees at the University of Pennsylvania, sued the university seeking to enforce a subpoena that sought, among other things, lists of school groups and organizations “related to the Jewish religion,” including personal contact information for Penn employees in those groups. The court found that while “ineptly worded,” the EEOC’s request had an “understandable purpose.” The court rejected the university’s argument that the subpoena infringed on affected employees’ substantive due process right to informational privacy, determining that home addresses, phone numbers, and participation in campus groups did not rise to the level of “highly personal” non-public facts. The court also found that the university failed to demonstrate how disclosure would create a “serious safety risk,” and provided little evidence as to how enforcement of the subpoena would chill the affected employees’ ability to associate. The court concluded that the EEOC’s charge was valid and ordered the university to comply with the subpoena, while noting the parties agreed upon stipulation that the university need not disclose employees’ specific affiliations with particular Jewish organizations. The university intends to appeal the decision.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | External Investigations | Investigations | Race and National Origin Discrimination

NACUA Annual Conference

Join us in the Music City June 29 – July 2 to connect, learn, and lead alongside higher education attorneys shaping policy, practice, and impact nationwide together.