Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    ACE Letter to GSA on proposed “Unlawful DEI” Certification Requirements (Mar. 23, 2026)

    The American Council on Education (ACE), along with 25 higher education associations, sent a letter to the General Services Administration (GSA) regarding proposed amendments to the certification requirements for applicants and recipients of federal financial assistance. The proposal would require all entities receiving federal grants and assistance to certify that they do not have unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and practices and are in compliance with legal interpretations of non-discrimination laws that have been advanced through executive orders and sub-regulatory guidance. The associations write that the proposed certification goes well beyond settled law and requires the endorsement of legal interpretations that are the subject of current federal litigation and have yet to be resolved by courts. The associations request that GSA “not advance” this proposal, stating that institutions should not be required to provide a certification of compliance with an interpretation of federal law that may, in fact, contradict state and local law, and would create significant uncertainty for institutions in their efforts to comply with federal law.

    Topics:

    Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Research

  • Date:

    United States of America v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (D. Mass. Mar. 20, 2026)

    Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff, the Department of Justice (DOJ), sued Harvard University claiming Title VI violations based on its failure to address antisemitism on campus. The complaint claims that the university was deliberately indifferent to discrimination that occurred on campus against Jewish and Israeli students and failed to consistently enforce its campus policies in cases where Jewish and Israeli students were the victims of harassment. The complaint further accuses the university of failing to discipline faculty and staff who endorsed student demonstrations by canceling class or dismissing students early to allow them to participate. The DOJ asks the court to: declare that the university has discriminated against Jewish and Israeli students in violation of Title VI; order the university to enforce its policies and impose discipline on students and faculty who violate those policies; declare the university is in material breach of its contracts and assurances of compliance under Title VI; rescind and award the United States restitution of all federal grant payments made during the period of alleged noncompliance; and appoint an independent outside monitor, approved by the government, to ensure compliance with all injunctive and equitable relief ordered by the court. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | Students

  • Date:

    Hansen v. The Lutheran Univ. Ass’n. (N.D. Ind. Mar. 19, 2026)

    Opinion and Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, the former Assistant Director of Building Services at Valparaiso University, sued the university alleging violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) after his position was eliminated while he was on medical leave. The court granted summary judgment for the university, finding the university had presented unrebutted evidence that it had eliminated plaintiff’s position as part of a “planned restructuring” prior to his request for FMLA leave while noting plaintiff failed to provide evidence this rationale was pretextual. In reaching its decision, the court explained that the FMLA does not guarantee reinstatement when an employee would have been terminated regardless of leave and cautioned that suspicious timing alone is insufficient to establish retaliation.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) | Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) | Privacy & Transparency | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Education and Workforce Committee Release Report on Antisemitism in Higher Education (Mar. 17, 2026)

    The Education and Workforce Committee published a report on antisemitism in higher education, the result of ongoing committee investigations and hearings on the topic which began in late 2023. The report calls on university leaders to do more to combat antisemitism on their campuses including adopting a robust definition of antisemitism, strengthening policies governing campus protests and ensuring consistent enforcement of those policies, and ensuring that university governing boards are engaged and intellectually diverse. The report also recommends that Congress pass the Civil Rights Protection Act, the Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rouge Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act (DETERRENT) and legislation requiring U.S. universities to make their syllabi at their overseas and satellite campuses publicly available.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | Students

  • Date:

    Stokes v. Boyce (N.D. Miss. Mar. 11, 2026)

    Opinion Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, the former Executive Assistant to the Vice Chancellor for Development at the University of Mississippi, sued the university chancellor in both his official and individual capacities alleging First Amendment retaliation and seeking reinstatement of her employment after she reposted a controversial statement regarding the killing of Charlie Kirk and was subsequently terminated. The court denied plaintiff’s motion, finding ample evidence that plaintiff’s post resulted in significant, actual disruptions to campus operations, including the cancelling of a student event, the need for increased campus police patrols outside plaintiff’s office, and increased work for a senior administrator tasked with responding to hate mail.

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation | Social Media | Technology

  • Date:

    Kershnar v. Kolison, Jr., et al. (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2026)

    Opinion and Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a philosophy professor at the State University of New York at Fredonia (SUNY), sued the university’s president and provost, alleging retaliation, viewpoint discrimination, and prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment, after he was barred from teaching and banned from campus following controversial remarks he made about age-of-consent laws during a podcast appearance. The court found that, despite the offensive nature of his speech, plaintiff plausibly alleged that his statements addressed a matter of public concern and therefore were entitled to First Amendment protection. The court further found that plaintiff had plausibly alleged that the university’s order prohibiting plaintiff from contacting members of the campus community functioned as a prior restraint on his speech. Finally, the court also found that although plaintiff continued to receive his salary during the campus ban, he had sufficiently alleged retaliation, concluding that the close timing between the podcast going viral, the university president’s public condemnation of the remarks, and campus ban plausibly suggested a retaliatory motive.  

    Topics:

    Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation

  • 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:

    Sheets v. Greenville Univ. (S.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2026)

    Opinion Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, the former head softball coach at Greenville University, brought claims against the university alleging sex-discrimination under Title VII and retaliation under Title IX after she objected to the university’s failure to provide her with an assistant coach, voiced opposition to a sports complex that did not provide comparable facilities for each sex, and was terminated and replaced with a less-qualified male coach. The court allowed plaintiff’s Title VII claim to proceed, finding she had adequately pled that she had been terminated on the basis of her sex. The court also allowed plaintiff’s Title IX retaliation claim based on her opposition to the sports complex to proceed, finding that plaintiff’s objections were raised “on behalf of female student athletes” and were known to the university decisionmakers responsible for her termination. However, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s Title IX retaliation claim based on her objections to the assistant coaching policy. The court found that because her claim rested on objections to employment discrimination that she herself was experiencing, and not on discrimination experienced by female student athletes, her Title IX claim was preempted by her Title VII claim.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination

  • Date:

    Doe v. Northwestern University (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2026)

    Opinion Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, a group of Jewish students who attend Northwestern University, sued the university for Title VI violations and breach of contract based on the university’s response to on-campus demonstrations related to the Israel-Hamas conflict and alleged acts of antisemitism. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ Title VI claims, finding plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that (1) the university had actual knowledge of the alleged antisemitic incidents or (2) its response to the on-campus encampment was “clearly unreasonable,” given it issued warnings, involved campus police, and negotiated the encampment’s removal in less than a week. In light of the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Title VI claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state contract claims. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | Students

  • Date:

    Hougham v. Trs. of Ithaca Coll. (N.D. N.Y. Feb. 27, 2026)

    Opinion Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a tenured professor at Ithaca College, brought Title IX employment discrimination claims against the college alleging university administrators discriminated against him based on sexual orientation, subjected him to harassment, and retaliated after he reported the conduct by declining to renew his associate provost appointment. The court allowed plaintiff’s Title IX discrimination claim to proceed, rejecting the college’s argument that plaintiff’s claims were precluded by Title VII. Relying on the Second Circuit precedent, the court reasoned that when Title IX allows a private right of action for a university’s intentional gender-based discrimination against a faculty member, that Title IX claim should not be dismissed on the ground that plaintiff complained of such discrimination with respect to his employment. Finally, the court dismissed plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim, finding that because the elements of the claim were identical to his hostile environment claim, the claim was duplicative.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Retaliation

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