Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
6/4/2025
Proclamation “Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats” (Jun. 4, 2025)
Proclamation from the President of the United States restricting entry of foreign nationals. The Proclamation directs the Secretary of State along with the Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence to identify countries throughout the world for which vetting and screening information is deficient and warrant a full or partial suspension of the admission of nationals from those countries pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act. It fully restricts and limits the entry of nationals of Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Additionally, partial restrictions and limits of entry have been placed on people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. The Proclamation reasons that “the United States must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists or other threats to our national security.” It also encourages foreign governments to improve their information-sharing and identity-management protocols and practices and to regularly share their identity and threat information with the immigration screening and vetting systems of the United States. The Proclamation is effective June 9, 2025. The White House issued a Fact Sheet in addition to the Proclamation.
Topics:
Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Students
Date:
4/17/2025
ACLU Open Letter to College and University General Counsels (Apr. 17, 2025)
The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (ACLU) published an open letter (the Letter) to college and university general counsels on (1) 8 U.S.C. §1324 Harboring Liability, and (2) ICE Administrative Subpoenas. The Letter states that under case law, a college or university’s normal conduct in providing housing and services to students does not constitute a violation of Section 1324, and that there are no consequences for an initial failure of an institution to respond to an administrative subpoena from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); further noting that any gag order in these subpoenas has no legal effect. The Letter additionally provides a legal analysis of limitations on liability for harboring under Section 1324 and the rights and options of an entity upon receipt of an ICE administrative subpoena.
Topics:
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Students
Date:
4/17/2025
U.S. Department of Education Issues Records Request to Harvard University (Apr. 17, 2025)
The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) sent a records request to Harvard University following a review of the University’s foreign reports, that revealed allegedly incomplete and inaccurate disclosures. To verify compliance, the University must produce within thirty calendar days: (1) a complete and accurate copy of its procedures to achieve compliance with Section 117; (2) a list of all foreign gifts, grants, and contracts from or with foreign sources; (3) the identities of all known parties involved in each of the University’s foreign source gifts; (4) all records regarding or referencing gifts or contracts between the University and foreign governments, without limitation; (5) all records relating to expelled foreign students or foreign students who have had their University credentials canceled from January 1, 2016, through the present; (6) a list of any electronic mail usernames known by Harvard or its personnel to have been utilized by such foreign students; (7) a list of all University personnel with responsibilities relating to the facilitation of the expulsion of foreign students or foreign students who have had their University credentials canceled from January 1, 2016, through the present; (8) a list identifying all full or partial funding sources and amounts for any research conducted by foreign expelled students; and (9) a list of all visiting or temporary researchers, scholars, students, and faculty at the University who are from or affiliated with foreign governments.
Topics:
Contracts | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Endowments & Gifts | Faculty & Staff | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Immigration | International Students | International Ventures | Research | Taxes & Finances
Date:
4/9/2025
Department of Homeland Security to Begin Screening Noncitizen Social Media Activity for Antisemitism (Apr. 9, 2025)
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will begin considering alleged antisemitic activity on social media and the physical harassment of Jewish individuals as grounds for denying noncitizen immigration benefit requests. It stated that the review of social media activity is immediate and will impact noncitizens applying for lawful permanent resident status, as well as foreign students and noncitizens affiliated with educational institutions linked to allegedly antisemitic activity. Under this guidance, USCIS will consider social media content that indicates a noncitizen endorsing, espousing, promoting, or supporting antisemitic (1) terrorism, (2) terrorist organizations, or other (3) activity as a negative factor in any USCIS discretionary analysis when adjudicating immigration benefit requests.
Topics:
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Students
Date:
4/4/2025
ACE Letter Seeking Clarity on International Students and Scholars (Apr. 4, 2025)
The American Council on Education (ACE) sent a letter (the Letter) to Secretary Marco Rubio of the U.S. Department of State and Secretary Kristi Noem of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security seeking information about the State Department (State) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy and planned actions relative to international students and scholars. The Letter is written in light of reports that student visas are being revoked, and records are being terminated in the Student Exchange Visitor Information System without additional information being shared with the institutions those students attend. The Letter states that over 1 million international students attend U.S. colleges and universities annually, and while those who signed the Letter support the need for the federal government to safeguard national security, institutions cannot fully support that mission unless there is a briefing to better understand the actions occurring, including the recent communication to U.S. consulates requiring enhanced social media vetting for all F, M, and J visa applicants.
Topics:
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Students
Date:
4/2/2025
AAUP Letter on Complying with Personally Identifiable Information (Apr. 2, 2025)
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) sent a letter (the Letter) to postsecondary general counsels clarifying that they are under no legal compulsion to comply with requests for names and nationalities of students and faculty who may have been involved in alleged Title VI violations, and further, urged them not to comply. The Letter states that Title VI does not require higher education institutions to provide the personally identifiable information of individual students or faculty members so that the federal executive administration can carry out further deportations and asserts that sharing such information may violate the First Amendment rights of students and faculty.
Topics:
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Students
Date:
3/11/2025
State of New Jersey v. Donald Trump (1st Cir. Mar. 11, 2025)
Order and Opinion Denying Defendants’ Application for a Partial Stay. Plaintiffs, including State and Attorneys General of Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the City and County of San Francisco, allege that Defendants, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Benjamin Huffman as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Social Security Administration (SSA), Michelle King as the Acting Commissioner of the SSA, U.S. Department of State, Marco Rubio as the Secretary of State, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Dorothy Fink as the Acting Secretary of HHS, have acted unconstitutionally in the announcement of Executive Order 14160 “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” (the Executive Order) and that actions taken by defendant agencies to implement or enforce the Executive Order would effectively violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Nationwide preliminary injunctions were issued by courts including the District of Maryland, the Western District of Washington at Seattle, and in the District of New Hampshire. Defendants sought and were denied a stay of the preliminary injunction by the First Circuit. The First Circuit was unpersuaded by Defendants’ argument that the injunction “prevents the President from carrying out his broad authority over and responsibility for immigration matters” resulting in irreparable harm to it and thus the public interest, as well as the claim that the injunction itself is overly broad to the extent that it “prevents . . . the Executive Branch as a whole from beginning the process of formulating relevant polices and guidance for implementing the President’s Order.” It denied the request for partial stay, noting that Defendants declined to make any developed arguments showing that the Executive Order itself was either constitutional or compliant with 8 U.S.C. § 1401. In addition, the First Circuit noted that Defendants failed to identify specific steps they wish to but are enjoined from taking. Therefore, it denied the request for a partial stay, and the injunction of the Executive Order remains in effect.
Topics:
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Students
Date:
2/10/2025
New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Donald J. Trump (N.D. NH Feb. 10, 2025)
Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, several organizations with members impacted by Executive Order: “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” (the Order), allege that defendants Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Department of State (DOS), Secretary of State, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are violating the Citizenship Clause, as well as the Birthright Citizenship Statute and request that the Order be enjoined. The Order denies citizenship to children born on American soil to a mother who is unlawfully present or temporarily present, and a father who is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Plaintiffs allege that “by attempting to limit the right to birthright citizenship, the Order exceeds the President’s authority and runs afoul of the Constitution and federal statute.” Plaintiffs contend the Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause by way of denying citizenship to the children of noncitizens who are born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Plaintiffs go on to state that “once deemed to be non-citizens, the children of plaintiffs’ members and other similarly situated children will be subject to immigration enforcement by DHS, CBP, and ICE. This may include arrest, detention, and deportation to countries they have never even visited.” Plaintiffs rely on United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), as well the codified language from Congress re Birthright Citizenship in statute 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a). Finally, plaintiffs ask the Court to declare the Order unconstitutional and unlawful in its entirety, and preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from enforcing the Order. The Court found that plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims; that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm if the order is not granted; the potential harm to the plaintiffs if the order is not granted outweighs the potential harm to defendants if the order is granted; and the issuance of the order is in the public interest.
Topics:
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff
Date:
2/7/2025
State of Washington v. Donald Trump (W.D. Wash. Feb. 6, 2025)
Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon sought declaratory and injunctive relief, against the Federal Government alleging that Executive Order: “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Order instructs that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing U.S. citizenship to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of their birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of their birth. In finding that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Order violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the INA, the Court found that a clear reading of the text in the Citizenship Clause is enough: “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The Court further wrote that the Government inappropriately interpreted the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” beyond its normal and ordinary meaning and additionally relied on the words “allegiance” and “domicile” which do not appear in the Citizenship Clause, or anywhere in the Fourteenth Amendment; and ultimately found that the plain meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” unequivocally applies to children born in the territorial United States, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Additionally, the Court rejected the Government’s argument that the United States has not “consented” to making undocumented migrants citizens, expressly noting that the “United States has consented to the citizenship of children born on its territory, through the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment” finding the Government’s argument to be unavailing and untenable. In granting plaintiffs’ motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction and enjoining enforcement or implementation of the Order on a nationwide basis, the Court concluded “the President cannot change, limit, or qualify this Constitutional right via executive order.”
Topics:
Background Checks & Employee Verification | Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Students
Date:
2/5/2025
CASA, Inc. v. Donald Trump (D. Md. Feb. 5, 2025)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, CASA, Inc. and Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, two nonprofit organizations that provide services to immigrants, as well as several pregnant women without permanent legal status sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that Executive Order 14160 (“Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”) violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). In finding that plaintiffs “easily have met the standard for a preliminary injunction” the Court writes that the President’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment and conflicts with 125-year-old binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)). Further reasoning “Nothing in Wong Kim Ark remotely supports the government’s narrow reading of the decision” and “the Government cites no case decided after Wong Kim Ark that supports the President’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. And there is none.” In determining that a nationwide injunction against the Order was appropriate, the Court concluded “the Executive Order flouts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, conflicts with binding Supreme Court precedent, and runs counter to our nation’s 250-year history of citizenship by birth.”
Topics:
Background Checks & Employee Verification | Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Students

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.