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:
ACE Letter Opposing the DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes and Chinese Entities of Concern Act (May 7, 2025)
The American Council on Education (ACE) sent a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives expressing opposition to H.R.881, the “DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes and Chinese Entities of Concern Act.” The letter states that the proposed legislation would prohibit any Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding from being awarded to U.S. postsecondary institutions with any type of working relationship with the majority of Chinese colleges or universities. Additionally, it states that the legislation is duplicative of multiple existing laws and agency regulations and would cause compliance confusion as its definition does not align with those used by other agencies and established government policies. The letter goes on to express concern about restrictions on FEMA funds, which institutions rely on to respond to natural disasters, and the new category of “Chinese Entities of Concern.” The letter also states that this new category, as it is so broadly defined, would likely include the majority of Chinese colleges and universities, potentially ending student exchange programs between the U.S. and Chinese institutions, study abroad programs for U.S. students in China, and important research and development work on issues of national importance–all of which are already in compliance with existing research security provisions created to protect U.S. research.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | International Ventures | ResearchDate:
U.S Transportation Office Announces Termination of $54 Million in University Grants (May 2, 2025)
U.S. Department of Transportation (the Department) announced that it has terminated several “woke” university grants totaling $54 million. The Department announced that the grants were used to advance a “radical DEI” and “Green New Scam agenda” that were “both wasteful and ran counter to the transportation priorities of the American people.” Terminated grants include (1) accelerating equitable decarbonization research for the University of California, Davis; (2) equitable transportation for the disadvantaged workforce for the City College of New York; (3) how transportation systems create and perpetuate inequities at the University of Southern California; (4) e-bikes to low-income travelers in transit deserts; (5) intermodal inequities at San Jose State University; (6) neighborhood stabilization efforts to support environmental justice at the University of New Orleans; and (7) hyperlocal pollution exposure inequalities in New York City at Johns Hopkins University.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored ResearchDate:
Association of American Universities v. National Science Foundation (D. Mass. May 5, 2025)
Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs, the Association of American Universities (AAU), the American Council on Education (ACE), the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, The Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of Arizona State University, Brown University, California Institute of Technology, the Regents of the University of California, Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Chicago, Cornell University, Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Regents of the University of Michigan, Regents of the University of Minnesota, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Trustees of Princeton University allege that defendants, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and Brian Stone’s decision to slash indirect cost rates to government-funded research is unlawful. Defendants issued a new policy on May 2, 2025, imposing a categorical cap on all new grant and cooperative agreement awards to universities not to exceed 15%. Plaintiffs allege that if allowed to stand, NSF’s policy “will badly undermine scientific research at America’s universities and erode our Nation’s enviable status as a global leader in scientific research and innovation.” Plaintiffs contend that defendants’ new policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as it is (1) contrary to law; (2) an illegal departure from Negotiated Cost Rates in violation of 2 C.F.R. 200.414; (3) an illegal departure from cost recovery regulations; and (4) arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs ask that the Court issue a vacatur of the policy; issue declaratory judgment finding the rate cap invalid, arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law; issue an injunction permanently prohibiting defendants, their agents, and anyone acting in concert or participation with defendants from implementing, instituting, maintaining, or giving effect to the rate cap policy in any form; from otherwise modifying negotiated indirect cost rates except as permitted by statute and by the regulations of OMB; and from rejecting or otherwise treating adversely proposals for NSF funding submitted at universities’ negotiated rates rather than the policy’s proposed 15% rate cap.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored ResearchDate:
U.S. Department of Education Letter to Harvard University Ending New Grants (May 5, 2025)
U.S. Department of Education (the Department) sent a letter to Harvard University informing the University that the federal government will no longer provide it with grants. The letter alleges that the University is “engaging in a systemic pattern of violating federal law” and criticizes the University’s management, course listings, and faculty. It further alleges that the University has failed to abide by the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023). The letter concludes by encouraging the University to draw from its endowment and alumni to compensate for the loss in federal grants. Litigation is ongoing in the related case, Harvard v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Services (D. Mass. Apr. 21, 2025), where amicus briefs are due June 9, 2025, and oral arguments are set to take place on July 21, 2025.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored ResearchDate:
National Science Foundation Policy Notice: Implementation of Standard 15% Indirect Cost Rate (May 2, 2025)
The National Science Foundation (NSF) published a Policy Notice on the adoption of a standard 15% Indirect Cost Rate (ICR) for NSF Grants and Cooperative Agreements awarded to institutions of higher education. The ICR applies to all NSF financial assistance awards and subawards and is intended to streamline funding practices, increase transparency, and ensure that resources are applied to direct scientific engineering research activities. The ICR is effective beginning May 5, 2025, applies to new awards, and does not apply retroactively to existing awards. The policy notice states that the new policy allows NSF and its awardees to focus more on scientific progress and less on administrative overhead by aligning with common federal benchmarks and improving government efficiency by eliminating the need for individualized indirect cost negotiations.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored ResearchDate:
NIH Notice on Term and Condition Change (Apr. 21, 2025)
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) published a Notice to the research community of a new Civil Rights term and condition that modifies the current terms and conditions for all NIH grants, cooperative agreements, and other transaction (OT) awards. The term applies prospectively to new, renewal, supplement, or continuation awards issued on or after the date of the Notice. The new term requires recipients to comply with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws material to the government’s payment decisions for purposes of 31 U.S.C. §372(b)(4). Specifically, recipients must certify that they do not and will not during the term of the financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA), or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws; and that they will do not and will not for the duration of the term of the award, engage in a discriminatory prohibited boycott (discriminatory equity ideology has the meaning set forth in Section 2(b) of Executive Order 14190 of January 29, 2025; discriminatory prohibited boycott means refusing to deal, cutting commercial relations, or otherwise limiting commercial relations specifically with Israeli companies or with companies doing business in or with Israel or authorized by, licensed by, or organized under the laws of Israel to do business.) Finally, the Notice states that NIH reserves the right to terminate financial assistance awards and recover all funds if recipients, during the term of the award, operate any program in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws or engage in a prohibited boycott.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored ResearchDate:
President and Fellows of Harvard College v. U.S. Department of health and Human Services (Apr. 21, 2025)
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff, the President and Fellows of Harvard College allege that defendants, the U.S. Department of Health and Human services, the National Institutes of Health, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Pamela J. Bondi, U.S. Department of Education, Linda M. McMahon, U.S. General Services Administration, Stephen Ehikian, U.S. Department of Energy, Christopher A. Wright, U.S. National Science Foundation, Sethuraman Panchanathan, U.S Department of Defense, Peter B. Hegseth, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Janet E. Petro have acted unlawfully by way of “withholding federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decision making at Harvard.” Defendants announced that they were freezing $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and $60 million in multiyear contract value to plaintiff after plaintiff refused to comply with defendants’ conditions outlined in letters sent on April 3 and 11, 2025. Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ intentions are to “allow the Government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution’s ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions.” Plaintiff contends that defendants’ action in withholding funding is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and defendants have violated the First Amendment, are acting in excess of their statutory and constitutional authority, are arbitrary and capricious, and failed to follow their own regulatory procedures, which required defendants to provide notice, attempt to secure compliance by voluntary means, provide an opportunity for hearing, make express findings on the record, and file with the Committees of the House and Senate that have legislative jurisdiction over the program(s) involved — none of which were done prior to Federal financial assistance being frozen. Plaintiff asked the court to declare defendants’ actions unconstitutional, postpone the effectiveness of the “Freeze Order” and any unconstitutional conditions in the April 3 and 11 letters, and finally, permanently enjoin defendants from violating plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, as well as from terminating, freezing, or refusing to grant or continue any Federal funding at issue without first complying with Federal law.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Contracts | First Amendment & Free Speech | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored 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.