Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    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:

    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:

    Court Grants Joint Parties’ Stipulation in Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ. v. Dep’t of Educ. (Mar. 31, 2026)

    The California State University System (CSU) sued the Department of Education challenging its January 2026 determination that San Jose State University (SJSU) violated Title IX when it allowed a transgender athlete to compete on the women’s volleyball team from 2022-2024. After reviewing the joint stipulation from the parties, the court entered an order setting out how the case will be managed going forward. The order stipulates that within two business days of any determination by the Department that it intends to withhold funds or take other action against SJSU or CSU, the parties will provide the court with a proposed briefing and hearing schedule. CSU agrees to maintain existing policies and not treat the stipulation as a concession on the merits. The order protects CSU from immediate enforcement consequences, particularly the risk to federal funding, while allowing the court to later resolve CSU’s claims that the Department’s actions were unlawful, retroactive, and constitutionally impermissible.

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Equity in Athletics | Sex Discrimination | Sexual Misconduct | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Department of Education Issues Letter of Impending Enforcement to San Jose State University on Title IX Compliance (Mar. 24, 2026)

    The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that it has issued a Letter of Impending Enforcement Action to San Jose State University (SJSU) for its alleged “ongoing refusal to comply with Title IX.” This action follows OCR’s January 2026 findings that the university’s policies “allowing males to compete in women’s sports and access female-only facilities deny women equal educational opportunities and benefits.” According to the press release, OCR submitted a proposed resolution agreement to SJSU, which “the institution refused to sign [] or attempt to negotiate its terms . . . .”  OCR has given the university 10 calendar days to come into compliance or face enforcement action, including referral to the Department of Justice and possible termination of federal funding.

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Gender Equity in Athletics

  • Date:

    Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ. v. Dep’t of Educ. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2026)

    Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff, the California State University System, sued the Department of Education challenging its January 2026 determination that San Jose State University (SJSU) violated Title IX when it allowed a transgender athlete to compete on the women’s volleyball team from 2022-24. The complaint alleges that SJSU could not lawfully exclude a transgender athlete under Ninth Circuit precedent, NCAA rules, and federal guidance, and maintains that the Department’s findings improperly attempt to retroactively impose Title IX obligations based on a later policy shift. The complaint further alleges that the proposed resolution agreement violates both the Spending Clause and the First Amendment by conditioning federal funding on the university sending personal apologies to female athletes and agreeing to amend its policies. Plaintiff has asked the court to vacate the Department’s findings and enjoin it from (1) terminating, freezing, blocking, or refusing federal funding to SJSU; and (2) enforcing the proposed resolution agreement. 

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Equity in Athletics | Sex Discrimination | Sexual Misconduct | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Blythe v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (D. Nev. Feb. 20, 2026)

    Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a Division I baseball recruit for the University of Nevada, Reno, challenged the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) Five-Year Rule and sought a preliminary injunction barring enforcement after his hardship waiver was denied and he was declared ineligible based on his prior seasons playing baseball at Division II and NAIA institutions. The court held that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of his Sherman Act claim, finding that the rule was commercial in nature and produced substantial anticompetitive effects, as well as finding the NCAA’s procompetitive rationales for the rule were insufficient. The court reasoned that the Five-Year Rule “forecloses the opportunity for qualified student-athletes from non-NCAA schools from entering a labor market for Division I baseball . . . simply because of their non-NCAA status.” While the court concluded that plaintiff faced immediate and irreparable harm “due to the time-sensitive loss of season play, compensation and related opportunity,” the NCAA “[would] not.” Accordingly, the court granted the preliminary injunction and enjoined enforcement of the Five-Year Rule against the plaintiff.  

    Topics:

    Antitrust | Athletics & Sports | Athletics Compliance & NCAA Rules | Student Athlete Issues | Students | Taxes & Finances

  • Date:

    Department of Education’s OCR Resolution Agreement with San Jose State University for Title IX Violations (Jan. 28, 2026)

    The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that it has found San Jose State University in violation of Title IX for allowing “males to compete in women’s sports and access female-only facilities.” The investigation, which began in February 2025, arose from allegations involving a student competing on the women’s indoor volleyball team and alleged retaliation against female athletes and an assistant coach who criticized the university’s gender identity policies. OCR also concluded that the university failed to promptly and equitably investigate Title IX complaints and took actions that discouraged women from participating in the Title IX process. The resolution agreement requires the university to: (1) “adopt biology-based definitions of male and female”; (2) separate athletics and intimate facilities based on biological sex; (3) refrain from delegating Title IX compliance to external entities and refuse to contract with any entity that discriminates on the basis of sex; (4) restore misappropriated athletic records and titles to female athletes; and (5) issue personalized apologies to affected female athletes, including athletes from other universities who forfeited their right to compete against the university.

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Gender Equity in Athletics | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Niblock v. University of Kentucky (6th Cir. Jan. 20, 2026)

    Opinion Affirming Judgment in Favor of the Defendant. Plaintiffs, former and current female students at the University of Kentucky, filed a putative class action against the university alleging Title IX and Equal Protection violations based on a disproportionate lack of women’s varsity sports opportunities. In considering the three safe harbors of complying with Title IX, the district court agreed with plaintiffs that the university did not provide substantially proportionate athletic sports for women or expand participation opportunities for women, but nevertheless the university’s efforts in “effectively accommodating” the interests and abilities of its students satisfied the third prong. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding and noted that plaintiffs failed to prove sufficient interest and ability among female students to field viable Division I varsity teams in any of their proposed sports (lacrosse, field hockey, and equestrian). The court further reasoned that plaintiffs’ self-reported survey responses, standing alone, did not establish varsity-level ability, and plaintiffs’ claims were further hindered by testimony from club team members and coaches who expressed that existing club teams lacked a sufficient numbers of athletes to compete at the varsity level.

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Gender Equity in Athletics

  • Date:

    Title IX Special Investigations Team Probes the California Community College Athletic Association for ‘Transgender Participation Policy’ (Jan. 15, 2026)

    The Department of Education and Department of Justice’s Title IX Special Investigation Team announced that it has initiated an investigation into the California Community College Athletic Association (3C2A) based on allegations that 3C2A’s “Transgender Participation Policy” violates Title IX. The Policy states that “a trans[gender] female…or non-binary student-athlete who has completed at least one calendar year of testosterone suppression treatment . . . may compete on a women’s team.” A complaint submitted to the Office for Civil Rights alleged that 3C2A ignored complaints from female students about “the harm of male students participating in female sports” and further alleged that the Policy resulted in discrimination against at least three female athletes when it “allowed a male athlete to participate on the woman’s volleyball team” and access locker facilities during the 2024 and 2025 seasons.

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Gender Equity in Athletics | Sexual Misconduct | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Initiates 18 Title IX investigations (Jan. 14, 2026)

    The Department of Education announced its Office for Civil Rights has initiated 18 Title IX investigations into educational institutions, three of which are institutions of higher education. The Department wrote that the complaints that led to the investigations are based on allegations that the institutions “maintain polices or practices that discriminate on the basis of sex by permitting students to participate in sports based on their ‘gender identity,’ not biological sex.”

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Equity in Athletics | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

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