FILTERS
- Age Discrimination
- Disability Discrimination
- Diversity in Employment
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
- Race and National Origin Discrimination
- Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
- Retaliation
- Sex Discrimination
- Veterans Discrimination
- Academic Freedom & Employee Speech
- Background Checks & Employee Verification
- Collective Bargaining
- Diversity in Employment
- Employee Benefits
- Employee Discipline & Due Process
- Employee Sexual Misconduct
- Employment of Foreign Nationals
- Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Categorization of Employees
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Intellectual Property
- Reproductive Health Issues
- Research
- Retaliation
- Tenure
- Veterans & Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Ethical Obligations of Higher Education Lawyers
- Evaluation of Operations & Staff in the General Counsel’s Office
- External Counsel
- Law Office Management
- Law Office Technology
- Law Office Training
- Roles & Responsibilities of the General Counsel
- Wellness & Stress Management
- Academic Performance and Misconduct
- Admissions
- Distressed & Suicidal Students
- Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans
- Hazing
- Internships, Externships, & Clinical Work
- Student Athlete Issues
- Student Conduct
- Student Housing
- Student Organizations
- Student Speech & Campus Unrest
- Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
- Uncategorized
Latest Cases & Developments
Date:
Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health (1st Cir. Jan. 5, 2026)
Opinion and Order Affirming Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction. Plaintiffs, a group of state attorneys general, medical associations, higher education associations and research universities, brought a lawsuit challenging the February 7, 2025 Supplemental Guidance issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which imposed a 15% across the board cap on the indirect cost reimbursement rate for grant recipients. After a U.S. district court judge granted a permanent injunction blocking the imposition of a rate cap and vacated the Supplemental Guidance, NIH appealed. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, concluding that (1) the district court properly exercised subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims and (2) NIH’s attempt to impose a 15% cap through the Supplemental Guidance violated both the congressionally enacted appropriations rider and the duly adopted agency regulations. On the jurisdictional question, the court rejected NIH’s argument that the plaintiffs’ claims were essentially contract disputes and thus the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. Applying the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in NIH v. APHA, the court concluded that because the plaintiffs had challenged “only the agency-wide guidance announcing that NIH will reimburse indirect costs at a 15% rate going forward,” and not the withholding of funds, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the claims.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | ResearchDate:
Department of Education Announces Release of $169 Million under FIPSE (Jan. 5, 2026)
The Department of Education announced that it has awarded $169 million from the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) in new grant awards for several projects. More than seventy colleges, universities, nonprofits and other organizations have received grant funding intended to (1) encourage responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI); (2) foster civil discourse; (3) drive accreditation reform; and (4) build capacity for high-quality short-term programs by way of a new Workforce Pell Grant-aligned program. A list of the awards broken down by specific dollar amounts and institutions can be found here.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | ResearchDate:
Thakur v. Trump (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2025)
Order Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion for Partial Stay. The plaintiffs, a group of researchers and faculty members at the University of California, sued the federal government challenging the termination of grants by several agencies. After the district court granted a preliminary injunction, the government appealed and requested a stay but only with respect to the grant terminations made by two agencies: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The 9th Circuit held that the government was likely to succeed in showing that the district court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ APA claims for the grants terminated by form letter, because those claims were effectively contract claims. However, the court denied a stay as to the grants terminated due to DEI objections, concluding the government failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits where the record indicated grants were terminated based on viewpoint, in violation of the First Amendment. The court emphasized that while the government had discretion in funding decisions, it could not penalize existing grants to suppress disfavored viewpoints.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | ResearchDate:
ACE Letter to OSTP on Request for Information on Accelerating the American Scientific Enterprise (Dec. 22, 2025)
The American Council on Education (ACE) along with fifteen other associations, sent a letter to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in response to the request for information (RFI) on federal policy to accelerate the American scientific enterprise. The letter addresses the specific questions proposed in the RFI and urges the administration to strengthen American research efforts by (1) ensuring stable funding; (2) leaving the Bayh-Dole Act in place; (3) encouraging partnerships with non-R-1 institutions to extend the reach of taxpayer dollars; (4) protecting the peer-review system; (5) adopting the Financial Accountability in Research (FAIR) model; (6) encouraging AI pilot programs to monitor and experiment with AI deployment in different campus settings; (7) withdrawing the DHS proposed duration of status rule; and (8) continuing efforts to coordinate national security and scientific inquiry with trusted global partners through National Security Presidential Memorandum 33 (NSPM-33).
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | ResearchDate:
Department of Justice Announces Agreement with Northwestern University (Nov. 28, 2025)
The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a settlement agreement with Northwestern University to close ongoing investigations and restore approximately $790 million in research funding. The settlement agreement requires the university to pay $75 million through 2028 and take other specified actions such as: (1) creating a Special Committee of the Board to oversee compliance with the agreement; (2) terminating the “Deering Meadow Agreement” of April 29, 2024, and all related polices; (3) conducting a climate survey; (4) obtaining approval from the Assistant Attorney General before making changes to specified policies and procedures related to protests, hiring, combatting antisemitism, etc.; (5) providing anonymized undergraduate admissions data categorized by race, ethnicity, national origin, GPA, and test scores; (6) ending all employment benefits or treatment based on protected characteristics; (7) confirming the removal of diversity statement requirements and prohibiting search committees from considering race, color, or national origin; and (9) ceasing hormonal interventions and transgender surgeries for minors.
Topics:
Admissions | Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Research | StudentsDate:
Am. Ass’n of Univ. Professors, et al., v. Trump, et al. (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025)
Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and other organizations representing the University of California system employees, faculty, and students, challenged the cancellation of federal grants, asserting violations of the First Amendment, unconstitutional conditions doctrine, Tenth Amendment Spending Clause, Separation of Powers doctrine, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court granted plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, holding that (1) plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their First Amendment, unconstitutional conditions, Tenth Amendment, and APA claims; (2) plaintiffs had shown that irreparable harm was likely; and (3) the balancing of the equities and the public interest favored granting the preliminary injunction. In reaching this decision, the court found that defendants’ actions in cancelling grants and then attempting to force a settlement from the university were “part of a standard playbook of suspending and terminating funding without complying with the statutory requirements” of Title VI or Title IX. The court also noted that the “undisputed record” demonstrated defendants had engaged in “coercive and retaliatory conduct in violation of the First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment.” The court’s order directed the restoration of all previously canceled grants at UCLA; enjoined the defendants from “withholding freezing, suspending, terminating, conditioning or otherwise restricting use of federal funds” to the university, to coerce it in violation of the First Amendment or Tenth Amendment; and enjoined the defendants from seeking payments of or imposing penalties or fines in connection with any civil rights investigations or violations of Title VI, VII, or IX.
Topics:
Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored ResearchDate:
Neurodegenerative Disease Research, Inc. v. Northwestern Univ. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2025)
Opinion and Order Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, Neurodegenerative Disease Research, Inc., brought claims against Northwestern University for fraudulent concealment and for breach of contract or, alternatively, equitable accounting, after it donated several million dollars to fund a multi-year research project conducted under the direction of a specific professor, and subsequently learned that, due to the professor’s strained relationship with the university, the professor would be leaving the university. The court held plaintiff had pled sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss on its fraudulent concealment claim, finding that a special relationship existed between the parties that gave rise to a duty to disclose the fact that prior litigation between the professor and the university could impact his availability to oversee the research. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, finding that although the university had failed to provide annual reports about the use of the funds as required by their agreement, the plaintiff had failed to allege that it suffered any damages as a result. However, the court allowed the plaintiff’s equitable accounting claim to proceed because the plaintiff had adequately alleged facts demonstrating that it did not have “an adequate remedy at law” for the university’s failure to provide the report and because a fiduciary relationship existed between the parties.
Topics:
Contracts | Endowments & Gifts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Research | Taxes & FinancesDate:
Department of Education Notice for Applications for New Awards for the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education-Special Projects (FIPSE-SP) (Nov. 12, 2025)
The Department of Education announced that it has issued a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year 2025 for the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education Special Projects (FIPSE-SP). The Department wrote that the competition will award $160 million across four areas of national need: (1) advancing the understanding and use of artificial intelligence (AI), (2) promoting civil discourse on college and university campuses, (3) promoting accreditation reform, and (4) supporting capacity-building for high-quality short-term programs. This notice redirects funds that were originally intended for seven established student success programs. Applications must be submitted by December 3, 2025.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | ResearchDate:
Department of Justice Announces Agreement with Cornell University (Nov. 7, 2025)
The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a settlement agreement with Cornell pausing ongoing civil rights investigations into the university and restoring $250 million in federal research funding. The settlement agreement requires the university to (1) share anonymized undergraduate admissions data categorized by race, GPA, and test scores through 2028; (2) conduct an annual campus climate survey; (3) agree to include the DOJ July 29, 2025 memorandum “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination” as a training resource to faculty and staff; and (4) ensure compliance with various federal laws. Finally, in addition to paying the federal government $30 million, the university has agreed to invest $30 million into research programs that will benefit U.S. farmers through various technologies.
Topics:
Admissions | Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Research | StudentsDate:
City of Seattle v. Trump (W.D. Wash. Oct. 31, 2025)
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, the City of Seattle, sued the Trump administration challenging Executive Order No. 14173 (“DEI Order”) and Executive Order No. 14168 (“Gender Order”), arguing that actions taken by the administration to condition grant funding based on the terms of the orders violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as contrary to constitutional right, in excess of statutory authority, and as arbitrary and capricious. The court held that the plaintiff was likely to prevail on its APA claims finding (1) by imposing the terms of the DEI and Gender Orders on federal grants, the administration had “run afoul of the Separation of Powers doctrine” and therefore, acted in excess of statutory authority; and (2) by requiring grantees to comply with its own interpretation of “discrimination,” rather than what was required under the law, defendants’ actions were arbitrary and capricious. The court rejected defendants’ argument that the funding conditions contemplated by the orders “simply” required grant recipients to comply with current federal antidiscrimination laws, and noted several statements from agency officials interpreting these laws “in a manner . . . inconsistent with well-established legal precedent.” The court granted the preliminary injunction and enjoined defendants from enforcing section 3(b)(iv) of DEI Order and section 3(g) of the Gender Order against the City of Seattle.
Topics:
Contracts | False Claims Act (FCA) | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Research
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.