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:
FERPA and PPRA Dear Educator Letter (Mar. 28, 2025)
U.S. Department of Education’s Student Privacy Policy Office (the Department) Dear Educator Letter (the Letter) re: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) Compliance. The Letter is directed to Chief State School Officers and Superintendents at primary and secondary educational institutions receiving federal funding and specifically notes priority concerns related to the classification of “gender plans” as well as the classification of death threats made by students against other students. The Letter states that the Department stands with parents in exercising their rights to the full extent of the law and announced a revitalized effort to make FERPA and PPRA the source of proactive, effective checks on schools that try to keep parents in the dark. Finally, the Letter requests that each state primary and secondary educational agency submit documentation no later than April 30, 2025, to provide assurance that the state agency and respective local educational agencies are complying with FERPA and PPRA, regarding the priority concerns.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) | Freedom of Information & Public Record Laws | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Privacy & TransparencyDate:
Department of Justice Announces Admissions Policies investigations (Mar. 27, 2025)
The U.S. Department of Justice (the Department) announced a compliance review investigation directed by Attorney General Pamela Bondi into the admissions policies at Stanford University, University of California, Berkeley, University of California, Los Angeles, and University of California, Irvine. The investigation is part of efforts to advance President Trump’s Executive Orders on ending Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellow of Harvard Coll. (2023).
Topics:
Admissions | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | StudentsDate:
American Association of University Professors v. Marco Rubio (D. Mass. Mar. 25, 2025)
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) , the AAUP Harvard Faculty Chapter, the AAUP at New York University, Rutgers AAUP – American Federation of Teachers, and the middle East Studies Association allege that defendants’ have established an “ideological-deportation policy,” in light of their announced intention to carry out large-scale arrests, detentions, and deportations of noncitizen students and faculty who participate in pro-Palestinian protests and other related expression and association, which plaintiffs aver has far-reaching implications for expressive and associational rights and effectively prevents or impedes plaintiffs’ members from hearing from, and associating with, their noncitizen students and colleagues. Plaintiffs brought this action following the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate. Plaintiffs allege that the ideological-deportation policy violates the First Amendment because it entails the arrest, detention, and deportation of noncitizen students and faculty on the basis of, or in retaliation for, their political viewpoints and because the policy is not narrowly tailored to any compelling government interest. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants’ threats to punish constitutionally protected speech violates the First Amendment and defendants’ threat to arrest, detain, and deport noncitizen students and faculty based on their political viewpoints violates the First Amendment because the threats are coercive and would chill individuals of ordinary firmness from exercising their expressive and associational rights. Plaintiffs further allege that the policy violates the Fifth Amendment because it invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement as it fails to give noncitizen students and faculty fair warning as to what speech and association the government believes to be grounds for arrest, detention, and deportation. Finally, plaintiffs allege that the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to constitutional right, and because it exceeds defendants’ statutory authority. Plaintiffs request that the Court declare that the policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments and the APA and set the policy aside; enjoin defendants from implementing or enforcing the policy–including, without limitation, through investigation, surveillance, arrest, detention, deportation, or any other adverse action; declare that defendants’ threats to arrest, detain, and deport noncitizen students and faculty based on their political viewpoints violates the First Amendment, and enjoin defendants from continuing to make those threats; and to the extent defendants rely on the security and related grounds of inadmissibility, including the “endorse or espouse” and foreign policy provisions, as the basis for carrying out the ideological-deportation policy, declare that those provision violate the First and Fifth Amendments as applied, and enjoin defendants from applying those provisions.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & AccommodationDate:
Announcement from Columbia University on its Work to Combat Discrimination, Harassment, and Antisemitism (Mar. 21, 2025)
In response to the immediate cancellation of approximately $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University from the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Education (ED), and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), the University published its comprehensive strategy to make its campus safer, more welcoming, and respectful of the rights of all. In the announcement, the University wrote: It is committed to rigorous and impartial enforcement of its rules and antidiscrimination policies to ensure a safe campus environment and continuation of all academic functions; it plans to do a comprehensive review of its admission procedures; hold a greater commitment to institutional neutrality; develop a K-12 curriculum on how to have difficult conversations and dialogue across differences and topics related to antisemitism; develop improvements to the disciplinary process, including the University Judicial Board; clarifying that protests in academic buildings, and other places necessary for the conduct of University activities, are generally not acceptable under the Rules of University Conduct because of the likelihood of disrupting academic activities; all individuals who engage in protests or demonstrations, including those who wear face masks or face coverings, must, when asked, present their University identification to the satisfaction of a University Delegate or Public Safety Officer; public safety has determined that face masks or face coverings are not allowed for the purpose of concealing one’s identity in the commission of violations of University policies or state, municipal, or federal laws; the University has hired 36 special officers who will have the ability to remove individuals from campus and/or arrest them when appropriate; review from the Senior Vice Provost on educational programs to ensure they are comprehensive and balanced as well as steward the creation of new programs, curricular changes, etc. The Announcement concludes by stating that all of these steps are made to further Columbia’s basic mission to provide a safe and thriving environment for research and education while simultaneously preserving its commitment to academic freedom and institutional integrity.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & AccommodationDate:
Statement of Interest Supporting Equal Access to Educational Opportunities and Facilities for Jewish UCLA Students (Mar. 18, 2025)
The U.S. Justice Department (the Department) filed a statement of interest in the Central District of California as part of the ongoing litigation of Frankel v. Regents of the University of California (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2024) to advance the appropriate interpretation of federal laws that prohibit colleges and universities from discriminating against students because of their religion or national origin. The statement of interest is part of the nationwide efforts to combat antisemitism from the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Equal Protection | First Amendment & Free Speech | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | StudentsDate:
OCR initiates Title VI investigations into 52 Universities (Mar. 14, 2025)
The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened investigations into 45 universities under Title VI following OCR’s Dear Colleague Letter (Feb. 14, 2025) (DCL). The investigations arise from allegations that institutional partnerships with “The Ph.D. Project” violate Title VI due to its allegedly race-based program eligibility restrictions. OCR also opened investigations into six additional universities for allegedly awarding impermissible race-based scholarships and into one program, which allegedly segregates students on the basis of race. The institutions under investigation include: Arizona State University – Main Campus; Boise State University; Cal Poly Humboldt; California State University – San Bernadino; Carnegie Mellon University; Clemson University; Cornell University; Duke University; Emory University; George Mason University; Georgetown University; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); Montana State University-Bozeman; New York University (NYU); Rice University; Rutgers University; The Ohio State University – Main Campus; Towson University; Tulane University; University of Arkansas – Fayetteville; University of California-Berkeley; University of Chicago; University of Cincinnati – Main Campus; University of Colorado – Colorado Springs; University of Delaware; University of Kansas; University of Kentucky; University of Michigan-Ann Arbor; University of Minnesota-Twin Cities; University of Nebraska at Omaha; University of New Mexico – Main Campus; University of North Dakota – Main Campus; University of North Texas – Denton; University of Notre Dame; University of NV – Las Vegas; University of Oregon; University of Rhode Island; University of Utah; University of Washington-Seattle; University of Wisconsin-Madison; University of Wyoming; Vanderbilt University; Washington State University; Washington University in St. Louis; Yale University; Grand Valley State University; Ithaca College; New England College of Optometry; University of Alabama; University of Minnesota, Twin Cities; University of South Florida; University of Oklahoma; and Tulsa School of Community Medicine.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & AccommodationDate:
OCR Title VI Letter to 60 Institutions of Higher Education (Mar. 10, 2025)
The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) sent letters to sixty postsecondary institutions warning of potential enforcement actions if they fail to fulfill their obligations under Title VI to protect Jewish students. Institutions that received letters include: American University; Arizona State University; Boston University; Brown University; California State University, Sacramento; Chapman University; Columbia University; Cornell University; Drexel University; Eastern Washington University; Emerson College; George Mason University; Harvard University; Illinois Wesleyan University; Indiana University, Bloomington; Johns Hopkins University; Lafayette College; Lehigh University; Middlebury College; Muhlenberg College; Northwestern University; Ohio State University; Pacific Lutheran University; Pomona College; Portland State University; Princeton University; Rutgers University; Rutgers University-Newark; Santa Monica College; Sarah Lawrence College; Stanford University; State University of New York Binghamton, Rockland, and Purchase; Swarthmore College; Temple University; The New School; Tufts University; Tulane University; Union College; University of California Davis; University of California San Diego; University of California Santa Barbara; University of California, Berkeley; University of Cincinnati; University of Hawaii at Manoa; University of Massachusetts Amherst; University of Michigan; University of Minnesota, Twin Cities; University of North Carolina; University of South Florida; University of Southern California; University of Tampa; University of Tennessee; University of Virginia; University of Washington-Seattle; University of Wisconsin, Madison; Wellesley College; Whitman College; and Yale University.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & AccommodationDate:
PFLAG, Inc. v. Trump (D. Md. Mar. 4, 2025)
Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, as well as PFLAG, a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting LGBTQ+ people, the American Association of Physicians for Human Rights, Inc., GLMA Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality, and six individually named transgender individuals who are all under nineteen years old filed suit against President Donald J. Trump, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation challenging the constitutionality of Executive Order 14168 titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” (the “Gender Identity Order”) and Executive Order 14189 titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” (the “Healthcare Order”). Plaintiffs contend that the EOs violate separation of powers, directly conflict with existing statutes, violate the Equal Protection Clause, and place conditions on federal funding that Congress did not prescribe. On February 14, 2025, the Court issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). Subsequently, it entered a preliminary injunction, based upon the same reasoning set forth in its Order granting the TRO, wherein the Court found the EOs “a clear violation of the Constitution as attempts by the Executive Branch to place new conditions on federal funds are an improper attempt to wield Congress’s exclusive spending power and is a violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers principles.” In its most recent Order the Court found that Plaintiffs met all factors predicate to issuance of a PI, and in particular that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under multiple theories, and also reasoned that individual Plaintiffs whose gender affirming care ceased due to the EOs established ripeness in that they suffered irreparable harm “caused by the discontinuation of what has been deemed by medical professionals to be essential care.”
Topics:
Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | 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.