Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Reminder of FVT GE Required Reporting for the 2025 Cycle (Jul. 9, 2025)

    The deadline for the 2023-24 data cycle for Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment (FVT/GE) data reporting and the evaluation of the Completers List is due September 30, 2025. Additionally, reporting for the 2024-25 award year is due by October 1, 2025.  

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Program Integrity & Gainful Employment

  • Date:

    ACE Letter on H.R. Bill 4054 (Jun. 25, 2025)

    The American Council on Education (ACE) sent a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education & Workforce’’ Chairman, Tim Walberg, and Ranking Member, Bobby Scott, to express concern regarding H.R. 4054, a bill proposing amendments to the accreditation process under the Higher Education Act of 1965. The letter argues that the proposed provision requiring accreditors to set specific student achievement outcome standards would mark a major shift in the role of accreditors, detracting from their focus on academic quality and comprehensive analysis. It also warns against allowing states to serve as accreditors, stating that it could lead to inconsistent standards and disrupt the current balance of the program integrity triad. Despite these concerns, the letter supports certain aspects of the bill, such as improving the substantive change process, promoting risk-based or differentiated reviews, and allowing institutions to switch accreditors when needed without needing approval from the Secretary of Education.

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act

  • Date:

    American Educational Research Association v. Department of Education (D. Md. June 12, 2025)

    Memorandum Opinion Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, the American Educational Research Association, and the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, filed suit against the Department of Education out of concern that the large staff and contract terminations to the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) could cut off access to the education data they depend on for their research. While the Court acknowledged that IES likely cannot fulfill its statutory duties in light of its drastic downsizing, the Court emphasized that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge terminations of all contracts and employees—plaintiffs could only challenge the losses that were essential to fulfill Congress’s specific mandates for IES. In addressing plaintiffs’ request for reinstatement of nearly all terminated contracts and employees, the Court reasoned that the request was overly broad and would constitute “improper judicial micromanagement.” This case will proceed to resolve the merits with expedited discovery to determine the exact scope of IES’s mandatory functions and staffing levels. 

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Higher Education Act (HEA)

  • Date:

    State of New York v. Linda McMahon (consolidated on appeal with Somerville) (1st Cir. Jun. 4, 2025)

    Opinion and Order Denying Defendant-Appellants’ Motion for Stay. Plaintiffs, State of New York, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Hawai’i, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Arizona, State of Delaware, State of Connecticut, District of Columbia, State of Illinois, State of Maine, State of Maryland, Attorney General for the People of Michigan, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of New Jersey, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Washington, and the State of Wisconsin along with Somerville Public Schools, Easthampton Public Schools, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), AFT Massachusetts, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the American Association of University Professors, and the Service Employees International Union were granted a preliminary injunction on May 22, 2025, which enjoined the Department of Education (the Department) and the Secretary from: (1) carrying out its March 11, 2025, Reduction in Force (RIF); (2) implementing the Executive Order “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities;” (3) implementing the March 21, 2025, directive to transfer management of federal student loans and special education functions out of the Department; and also, required that defendants reinstate federal employees whose employment was terminated or eliminated on or after January 20, 2025, as part of the March 11, RIF. Following the preliminary injunction, defendants moved for a stay pending appeal to the First Circuit. In denying defendants’ motion for stay, the court found that defendants failed to cite authority in their argument that the Executive Branch would suffer irreparable harm by being required to carry out Congress’s duly enacted statutes, framing the omission as “concerning.” The Court further found that defendants failed to make a strong showing that they are likely to succeed in their appeal as to the injunctive relief at issue insofar as that relief is predicated on the plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims. The Court reasoned that in addition to being unable to meet the threshold for a motion to stay, defendants further failed to show that the plaintiffs would not be substantially injured by a stay of the preliminary injunction during the pendency of the appeal, nor did they demonstrate that the public’s interest lies in permitting a major federal department to be disabled from performing its statutorily assigned functions. Based upon the reasoning of its Opinion, the Court ordered denial of defendants’ motion for a stay. 

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Higher Education Act (HEA)

  • Date:

    U.S. Department of Education Notifies Accreditor of Alleged Title VI Violation at Columbia University (Jun. 4, 2025)

    U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (the Department) announced that it notified Middle States Commission on Higher Education (the Commission) that its member institution, Columbia University, is allegedly in violation of antidiscrimination laws and therefore fails to meet the standards for accreditation set by the Commission. The Department notified the accreditor pursuant to Executive Order “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education.” This announcement follows the May 22, 2025, announcement that the Department, as well as the Department for Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights alleged that the University acted with deliberate indifference toward the harassment of Jewish students and thus violated Title VI.  

    Topics:

    Accreditation | Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation

  • Date:

    State of New York v. Linda McMahon (D. Mass. May 22, 2025)

    Memorandum and Order on Consolidated Plaintiffs’ Motions for Preliminary Injunction. In a set of consolidated cases, plaintiffs, State of New York, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Hawai’i, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Arizona, State of Delaware, State of Connecticut, District of Columbia, State of Illinois, State of Maine, State of Maryland, Attorney General for the People of Michigan, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of New Jersey, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Washington, and the State of Wisconsin along with Somerville Public Schools, Easthampton Public Schools, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), AFT Massachusetts, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the American Association of University Professors, and the Service Employees International Union allege that President Trump’s March 20th Executive Order “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities” as well as the March 11, 2025, reduction in force (RIF) to the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) is unlawful and harms millions of students, school districts, and educators across the Nation. Finding in favor of plaintiffs, the Court reasoned that “a department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all. This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the Department’s employees are continuously fired, and units are transferred out until the Department becomes a shell of itself.” In granting plaintiffs preliminary relief, agency defendants were enjoined from carrying out the March 11 reduction-in-force announcement, implementing President Trump’s March 20 Executive Order, and from carrying out the President’s March 21, 2025 directive to transfer management of federal student loans and special education functions out of the Department; agency defendants were also ordered to reinstate federal employees whose employment was terminated or otherwise eliminated on or after January 20, 2025, as part of the reduction in-force, in order to restore the Department to the status quo such that it is able to carry out its statutory functions.  

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Higher Education Act (HEA)

  • Date:

    ACE Letter on Negotiated Rulemaking Committees (May 8, 2025)

    The American Council on Education (ACE) sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) in response to the notice from the Department announcing the possible formation of negotiated rulemaking committees. The letter welcomes efforts to address the regulatory swing between different administrations and emphasizes that there has been significant cost and confusion as campuses attempt to repeatedly understand and implement radical shifts in regulatory requirements within a space of only a few years’ time. It offers suggestions and considerations for (1) Pay As You Earn (PAYE) and Income Contingent Repayment (ICR) student loan repayment plans; (2) refining definitions of a qualifying employer for the purposes of determining eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program; (3) reporting Requirements under Section 117 of the HEA; (4) Gainful Employment and Financial Value Transparency (GE/FVT); (5) bundled services guidance; (6) financial responsibility standards; (7) administrative capability; and (8) certification procedures. The letter concludes by emphasizing how requirements on institutions to meet state licensure requirements for every state in which they enroll students will be immensely difficult to manage for any program with a distance education component and represents a problematic expansion of federal regulations in a way that runs contrary to innovative distance education.  

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Program Integrity & Gainful Employment | Students

  • Date:

    President’s FY 2026 Discretionary Budget Request (May 2, 2025)

    In the Trump Administration’s budget request, which was sent by Office of Management and Budget Director, Russell T. Vought to Senator Susan Collins and the Committee on Appropriations, the U.S. Department of Education would see a 15% reduction. Specifically, the cover letter and included chart setting forth discretionary spending changes calls for eliminating Federal Work Study, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), Adult Education, Migrant Education and Special Programs for Migrant Students, Equity Access Centers, Teacher Quality Partnerships, TRIO programs, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP), and the Higher Education Act (HEA) Title III-A Strengthening Institutions Program. Additionally, several substantial budget cuts are proposed for other programs and offices such as the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to “refocus away from DEI and Title IX transgender cases.” Cuts to other agencies that could impact postsecondary institutions include the National Science Foundation (a 56% decrease) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (an 18% decrease). 

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Contracts | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Higher Education Act (HEA) | Students

  • Date:

    ABA Memorandum on Standard 206 Recommendations (May 2, 2025)

    The American Bar Association (ABA) published a memorandum from the Standards Committee regarding Standard 206 Recommendations. The memo states that in February 2025, the Council suspended Standard 206 through August 31, 2025, considering relevant Executive Orders and the U.S. Department of Education’s February 14, 2025, Dear Colleague Letter (DCL). In order to account for ongoing litigation related to the Executive Orders and the DCL, as well as the recently issued Executive Order titled “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education,” which specifically refers to the ABA, the Standards Committee recommends that Standard 206 remain suspended through August 31, 2026. The Committee reasoned that compliance with Standard 206 will continue to constitute extreme hardship for multiple law schools. The memo concludes that the Council will not take any action based in whole or part on Standard 206, conduct any evaluation that includes an assessment of institutional compliance with Standard 206, or issue any guidance regarding compliance with the Standard while it remains suspended, noting that no member institution will be held accountable for compliance with the suspended Standard for the duration of its suspension. An update will be provided by the Standards Committee no later than its May 2026 meeting.  

    Topics:

    Accreditation | Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act

  • Date:

    DCL Providing Guidance on Changing Accrediting Agencies (May 1, 2025)

    U.S. Department of Education (the Department) published a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL), which both provides guidance on changing accrediting agencies and supersedes GEN-22-10 and GEN-22-11. The DCL states that the Department will conduct expeditious review of applications received, highlighting that Department guidance should allow institutions the freedom to develop unique partnerships with accrediting agencies. The DCL restates the obligations under 34 CFR §600.11 for an institution to receive approval, clarifies where the Department does not have the authority to withhold an approval, and further supersedes earlier guidance provided on the subject in GEN-22-10 and GEN-22-11. It goes on to state that when an institution begins the process of obtaining a new accreditor, it should notify the Department in writing of its intent to change its primary accrediting agency as soon as possible along with submitting a “Reasonable Cause Request Certification” to serve as documentation of its prior accreditation, and materials demonstrating reasonable cause for changing or adding an accrediting agency.  

    Topics:

    Accreditation | Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act

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.

Register