Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    State of New York, et al., v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al. (D.R.I. Jan. 13, 2026)

    Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, a coalition of twelve states, sued the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and several subagencies alleging that HHS’s adoption of new grant funding conditions, requiring compliance with the Administration’s interpretation of Title IX as set forth in Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  In particular, the funding conditions require recipients to certify they have adopted the executive order’s definition of sex and gender, recognizing only “male” and “female” based on “biology at conception.” Plaintiffs allege that HHS acted arbitrarily and capriciously by reversing longstanding interpretations of Title IX without reasoned explanation and by failing to consider reliance interests, scientific evidence, and the existence of transgender individuals. Plaintiffs further allege that HHS unlawfully adopted a legislative rule without notice and comment, exceeded its statutory authority by attempting to graft an executive order onto Title IX, and violated the Spending Clause and separation of powers by imposing vague, retroactive, and coercive funding conditions not authorized by Congress. Plaintiffs contend that the challenged conditions expose them to immediate and irreparable harm by threatening the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal health, education, and research funding by subjecting them to heightened risk of enforcement under the False Claims Act. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that the funding conditions are unlawful and unconstitutional, vacatur of the conditions across all HHS grant documents, and a permanent injunction barring defendants from implementing or enforcing the conditions.

    Topics:

    Campus Ethics Programs | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Ethics | False Claims Act (FCA) | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Research

  • Date:

    Fakhreddine v. The Univ. of Pa. (3rd Cir. Jan. 9, 2026)

    Opinion Affirming Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, two professors and a faculty group at the University of Pennsylvania, sued the university to block document production to a House committee investigating antisemitism, arguing that the university’s cooperation would violate their constitutional and state-law rights and could result in harassment, given the negative publicity plaintiffs had received following a prior hearing. The district court granted the university’s motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they could not plausibly allege that the university had disclosed any specific information about them or that any concrete harm had occurred. On appeal, the Third Circuit agreed, stating that “[a]t most, the pleading alleges that responsive documents ‘might mention’ [plaintiff].” While agreeing that the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ state law claims was proper, because the dismissal was due to a lack of jurisdiction, the court modified the judgment to dismiss without prejudice.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • 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:

    Department of Justice Final Rule Eliminating Disparte-Impact Liability from Title VI Regulations (Dec. 10, 2025)

    On December 10, the Department of Justice issued a final rule that eliminates disparate-impact liability from its regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The final rule implements changes directed by Executive Order 14281, “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy” and takes effect immediately. While under the prior regulations, agencies were permitted to consider recipient policies and practices that had an alleged discriminatory effect; the new rule clarifies that Title VI only prohibits intentional discrimination. The preamble clarifies that while the rule does not preclude the use of statistical data to prove intentional discrimination, this use “materially differs from using it to impose liability for an unintentional disparate impact.”

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws

  • Date:

    Pomona College Title VI Settlement Agreement (Dec. 10, 2025)

    Pomona College reached a settlement agreement with the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, Hillel International, and the Anti-Defamation League, which resolved an antisemitism complaint that the parties filed against the college with the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. The agreement runs from spring 2026 through spring 2028 (with some obligations extending through spring 2029) and requires the college to: (1) add a warning to its trainings and FAQ that “Zionist” is often used as a codeword for ‘Jew’ and may be evidence of antisemitic intent; (2) commit to considering and incorporating the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism; (3) ban masked protests; (4) appoint a Civil Rights and/or Title VI Coordinator; (5) mandate individual Title VI training for all students, staff, and faculty; (6) hold semester meetings between college leadership and Jewish student organizations; (7) conduct a campus climate survey; and (8) update its policies and procedures including its Time, Place and Manner policy and its Flyer policy.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    Jackson v. Duff (5th Cir. Dec. 10, 2025)

    Opinion Affirming Denial of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, the vice president of Jackson State University, sued members of the Mississippi Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning in their individual capacities, alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause under § 1983 and sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII after the board failed to hire her for an interim president role, and subsequently denied her an interview and failed to hire her for the presidency. The district court denied the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s § 1983 claims based on qualified immunity. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, finding (1) that each board member, by way of voting to appoint a male candidate and denying plaintiff an interview, could be construed as the proximate cause of plaintiff’s alleged constitutional injury, and (2) because the plaintiff had adequately pled a violation of clearly established law,” a qualified immunity defense was foreclosed at this stage of the proceeding.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Governance | Governing Boards & Administrators | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination

  • Date:

    Green v. Univ. of Mississippi (N.D. Miss. Dec. 10, 2025)

    Opinion Denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a Black intervention specialist at the University of Mississippi’s drug and alcohol treatment center, sued the university alleging race and sex discrimination under Title VII after she was terminated based on allegations of inappropriate conduct with students, her position was subsequently eliminated, and her job responsibilities transferred to a recently hired employee. The court denied the defendant’s summary judgment motion, holding that, although plaintiff’s position was eliminated after her termination, plaintiff had established she was “replaced” because her duties were assumed by someone outside her protected class. The court further held that plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the university’s stated reason for her termination was pretextual and noted comments from plaintiff’s supervisor that she preferred a White male for plaintiff’s position. The court explained that pretext could also be inferred from the university’s investigation into plaintiff for alleged misconduct because testimony suggested that the university did not actually believe the allegations were proven and plaintiff was not informed of the allegations or given an opportunity to respond prior to her termination.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Sex Discrimination

  • Date:

    $21 Million Payout Process Begins in Columbia University Antisemitism Settlement with EEOC (Dec. 4, 2025)

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced the claims process for current and former Columbia University employees who believe they experienced antisemitic discrimination, harassment, or retaliation between October 7, 2023 and July 23, 2025. The $21 million settlement with the EEOC is part of a larger settlement Columbia reached with the federal government in July which included a $200 million in exchange for the restoration of $400 million in federal grant funding. EEOC has sole discretion for eligibility and amount awarded to claimants from the settlement fund.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    Luong v. Vanderbilt Univ. (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 3, 2025)

    Opinion Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a former Ph.D. student at Vanderbilt University, sued the university alleging disability discrimination, retaliation, and breach of contract after she was dismissed from her program following disputes with her academic advisor. The court denied plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction reinstating her into the program, concluding she had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits on any of her claims. The court found plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on her failure to accommodate claim because her request for an extension to complete her thesis was vague and unreasonable. The court also found plaintiff unlikely to succeed on her disability discrimination claim, since she was dismissed based on her failure to secure a new advisor, and not because of a qualifying disability. The court also determined plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on her retaliation claim, given the extensive gaps between her request for accommodations and the university’s decision to remove her advisor and dismiss her from the program. Finally, the court determined plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on her breach of contract claims, finding that if a contractual relationship existed between the parties, plaintiff’s prior failure to meet academic expectations constituted a material breach that excused the university from later complying with its probationary and dismissal procedures.

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Students

  • Date:

    Brassette v. Adm’rs of the Tulane Educ. Fund (E.D. La. Dec. 1, 2025)

    Opinion Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former Paint Supervisor at Tulane University, brought Title VII reverse race discrimination and retaliation claims and claims under the Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA) after he was terminated following an internal investigation which concluded he had discriminated against Black employees by “harassing, screaming at, excessively monitoring, and unreasonably disciplining them.” In granting summary judgment for the university on plaintiff’s race and age discrimination claims, the court held plaintiff could not demonstrate that his firing was pretextual, finding instead that the university “reasonably believed” that he discriminated against Black painters working for him, and was terminated on that basis alone. Regarding plaintiff’s retaliation claim, the court found that although he had engaged in protected activity when he complained that his write-ups were not taken seriously because of his race, he failed to make a causal connection between this activity and his termination four months later.

    Topics:

    Age Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin 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