Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Polk v. Montgomery Cnty. Pub. Schs. (4th Cir. Jan. 28, 2026)

    Opinion Affirming Denial of Plaintiff’s Request for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a former substitute teacher for Montgomery County Public Schools, sued the Montgomery County Board of Education alleging violations of Title VII and First Amendment free speech and free exercise rights, after her request for a religious accommodation from the board’s preferred pronoun policy was denied. While the district court allowed plaintiff’s Title VII claim to proceed, it dismissed her First Amendment claims and denied her motion for a preliminary injunction. In a 2-1 decision, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling, finding that plaintiff’s free speech claim failed because the challenged speech fell within a teacher’s official duties under Garcetti v. Ceballos and was not constitutionally protected. The court further found that plaintiff’s free exercise claim failed because the board’s policy was a neutral, generally applicable rule that survived rational basis review under the framework articulated by the Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith.

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination

  • Date:

    American Association of University Professors, et al., v. Marco Rubio, et al., (D. Mass. Jan. 22, 2026)

    Annotated Judgment Vacating Defendants’ Enforcement Policy. Following a September ruling that the government’s enforcement policy implementing Executive Orders 14161 and 14188, violated the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the court issued an annotated judgment, declaring the enforcement policy “OF NO EFFECT, VOID, ILLEGAL, SET ASIDE, AND VACATED.” Further, pursuant to its equitable powers, the court imposed a “remedial sanction” that allows affected noncitizen members of the plaintiffs’ organizations to challenge adverse immigration actions, shifting the burden to the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that such actions were not retaliatory or were otherwise lawful, while automatically staying removal during litigation.

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation

  • Date:

    American Federation of Teachers, et al., v. U.S. Department of Education, et al. (4th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026)

    The Department of Education dropped its appeal of an August 2025 federal court ruling that blocked the Department’s February 14, 2025 Dear Colleague Letter and a related requirement that school districts certify they do not engage in “illegal DEI” practices. With this withdrawal, the district court’s decision will stand.

    Topics:

    Admissions | Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Diversity in Employment | Due Process | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | First Amendment & Free Speech | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Students

  • Date:

    Christensen v. Carter (S.D. Oh. Jan. 14, 2026)

    Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a student at Ohio State University, sued the president of the university and several senior administrators alleging violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, after the university disenrolled him based on controversial social media videos he posted on his personal TikTok account. The court held that plaintiff demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on his First Amendment retaliation claim, reasoning that while plaintiff’s speech was controversial, it did not “explicitly encourage violence or lawlessness and [was] unlikely to be an implicit endorsement of such action.” Further, the court determined that the facts “[did] not support the conclusion that [d]efendants’ forecast of substantial disruption was reasonable” given the lack of evidence that plaintiff’s speech disrupted any classwork and the fact that the semester was over and plaintiff was not on campus, let alone in the state of Ohio. The court also held that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of his Fourteenth Amendment claim because he did not receive notice and the university failed to show that emergency circumstances justified its failure to hold a hearing prior to disenrolling him. Finally, the court determined that the disenrollment notation on plaintiff’s transcript constituted ongoing irreparable harm and ordered the university to expunge the notation.

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Due Process | First Amendment & Free Speech | Social Media | Student Speech & Campus Unrest

  • Date:

    Damsky v. Summerlin (11th Cir. Jan. 8, 2026)

    Opinion Granting Stay of a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a law student at the University of Florida, sued the university for violating his First Amendment rights when it expelled him based on his concerning behavior on campus and social media posts, including a post that stated, “Jews must be abolished by any means necessary.” After the district court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the university to reinstate the plaintiff, the university appealed.  The Eleventh Circuit stayed the district court’s injunction, holding that the university is likely to succeed on the merits because the plaintiff’s speech “was likely not protected by the First Amendment” and constituted a true threat. The court reasoned that the plaintiff’s statements were reasonably interpreted as calling for extralegal violence and that, despite occurring off campus, the speech was sufficiently connected to the university through the plaintiff’s awareness of a campus audience and his engagement with a UF law professor. When read within the context of plaintiff’s other posts and behavior, as well as reports of concern and fear from students and faculty, the court found there to be evidence of serious disruption that justified intervention from the university to maintain a safe educational environment. The court concluded that “absent a stay, [the university] will need to take immediate and substantial security precautions to protect its students, faculty, and others on campus, burdens which weigh heavily in favor of granting a stay.”

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech | Social Media

  • Date:

    Peace v. Carter (S.D. Oh. Dec. 30, 2025)

    Opinion and Order Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at Ohio State University, sued the president of the university and several university police officers asserting claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution under Ohio law and the Fourth Amendment, First Amendment retaliatory arrest, and a First Amendment claim challenging the University Space Rules (USR), after he was arrested on campus for criminal trespass while filming during a protest. The court dismissed the majority of plaintiff’s claims including (1) any claims to the extent they sought injunctive or declaratory relief, holding plaintiff failed to allege an ongoing or threat of future injury sufficient for Article III standing; (2) claims against the defendants in their official capacities; (3) state law claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution against defendants, holding the court lacked jurisdiction; and (4) § 1983 claims against the university president in his individual capacity, holding he lacked the requisite personal involvement in the alleged unconstitutional conduct necessary to be held liable. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss with respect to three claims against three university police officers, including plaintiff’s as-applied First Amendment challenge to the USR, noting, in part, that defendants provided no basis to find that plaintiff’s filming of the university police did not enjoy First Amendment protection.

    Topics:

    Campus Police & Relationships with Local Law Enforcement | Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Constitutional Issues | Fourth Amendment & Search and Seizure | Student Speech & Campus Unrest

  • Date:

    Reges v. Cauce (9th Cir. Dec. 19, 2025)

    Plaintiff, a professor at the University of Washington, sued the university for First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, and brought a facial challenge against the university’s nondiscrimination policy as overbroad and vague after the university investigated and reprimanded him following plaintiff’s statement on his syllabus mocking the university’s recommended land acknowledgement statement. The district court granted summary judgment for the university on plaintiff’s retaliation and viewpoint discrimination claims, finding the university had a legitimate interest in preventing disruption caused by plaintiff’s statement; and dismissed plaintiff’s challenge to the nondiscrimination policy, construing the policy to be limited in its reach and therefore neither overbroad nor vague. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, directing that summary judgment be entered for the plaintiff on his First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination claims. The court found that (1) the university had taken adverse action against the plaintiff based on the views he expressed in his syllabus statement including subjecting him to a lengthy investigation, reprimanding him, and warning of possible future discipline; (2) plaintiff’s speech was protected because he “spoke in his own capacity as a professor, not on behalf of his employer” and he “unquestionably spoke on a matter of public concern”; and (3) the university failed to meet its burden under the Pickering test of demonstrating that its legitimate interests in mitigating the disruption outweighed plaintiff’s interest in speaking on a matter of public concern. Finally, on plaintiff’s facial challenge to the nondiscrimination policy, the court held that because the district court’s “limiting construction” of the policy conflicted with the policy’s plain text, the district court erred in dismissing the claim and remanded for further consideration.

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Pichiorri v. Burghes (6th Cir. Dec. 19, 2025)

    Opinion Affirming Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former research scientist at The Ohio State University sued the Board of Trustees and several university officials alleging violations of due process and equal protection under § 1983 and various state law claims, when, after the plaintiff left the university, a university committee began and completed an investigation finding she had committed research misconduct, and reported their findings to several medical journals and the plaintiff’s employer roughly two years after the conclusion of the investigation. The district court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, holding that sovereign immunity barred her claims against the Board and university officials in their official capacities, certain claims were time-barred, and all federal claims failed on the merits. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that plaintiff’s procedural due process claim failed because she failed to plausibly allege a protected liberty interest, and her alleged harms to future employment opportunities fell short under the stigma-plus test. The court further held that the university’s delay in notifying the plaintiff’s employer and medical journals of its research-misconduct findings did not rise to the level of conscious-shocking conduct required for a due process claim, even if the disclosures were defamatory in nature.

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Research | Research Misconduct

  • Date:

    Trump Administration Filed a Notice of Appeal Challenging Harvard Funding Order (Dec. 18, 2025)

    The Trump Administration filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, seeking to overturn a September order by federal Judge Allison D. Burroughs that restored $2.7 billion in research funding to Harvard University. The notice covers two lawsuits involving the university, the other brought by the Harvard chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Research

  • Date:

    Damsky v. Summerlin (N.D. Fla. Nov. 24, 2025)

    Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a law student at the University of Florida with a history of making provocative statements, sued the university for violating his First Amendment rights when it expelled him for posting on social media that “Jews must be abolished by any means necessary.” The court granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and reinstated him at the law school, finding he was likely to prevail on his First Amendment claims and had established irreparable harm in being denied the ability to attend school because of his protected speech. While the university claimed that plaintiff’s speech constituted a “true threat” and thus was unprotected, the court rejected this argument, concluding instead that plaintiff was “stating a view, even if a hateful and offensive one,” and had not conveyed any serious expression of an intent to harm or commit violence. The court also rejected the university’s claim that plaintiff’s speech “created a material and substantial disruption” to the operation of the law school, reasoning plaintiff’s post “bear[ed] no connection with the school at all” as the post occurred outside the university and did not mention the university, administrators, other students, or professors.

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech | Social Media | Student Speech & Campus Unrest

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