Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Presidential Proclamation Restricting and Limiting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the Security of the United States (Dec. 16, 2025)

    The President issued a Proclamation, “Restricting and Limiting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the Security of the United States,” that continues and expands restrictions on entry of certain foreign nationals in several countries identified by the Administration as “high risk.” The Proclamation maintains full entry restrictions for the twelve countries identified in the June 4 Proclamation and now extends those restrictions to five additional countries: Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, South Sudan, and Syria. The Proclamation also adds full restrictions and entry limitations on individuals holding Palestinian-Authority-issued travel documents. The Proclamation maintains partial restrictions for four countries identified in the earlier proclamation (Burundi, Cuba, Togo, and Venezuela) and extends these partial restrictions to fifteen additional countries (Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Dominica, Gabon, The Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Tonga, Zambia, and Zimbabwe). Exceptions are present for lawful permanent residents, existing visa holders, and certain visa categories like athletes and diplomats. The Proclamation takes effect on January 1, 2026. The White House issued a Fact Sheet providing additional information on the Proclamation.

    Topics:

    Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Immigration

  • Date:

    Öztürk v. Trump, et al. (D. Mass. Dec. 8, 2025)

    Opinion Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a Turkish national and doctoral candidate at Tufts University, challenged the government’s termination of her Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (“SEVIS”) record and sought injunctive relief to reinstate it, arguing the termination violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the First Amendment. The court granted plaintiff’s motion, holding that (1) she was likely to succeed on her APA claim that the record termination was contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious; (2) she had made the requisite showing of irreparable harm; and (3) the balance of the equities and the public interest favored granting the injunction. In concluding the government’s actions were likely arbitrary and capricious, the court noted the government’s “shifting justifications” about the rationale for terminating plaintiff’s SEVIS record as well as conflicting statements about whether she “maintained” nonimmigrant legal status. The court also found plaintiff had made the requisite showing of irreparable harm finding that SEVIS termination had resulted in the loss of unique opportunities for plaintiff to work with her advisor and further her doctoral training and professional development. 

    Topics:

    Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | International Students

  • Date:

    Grossenbach v. Arizona Bd. of Regents (D. Ariz. Nov. 21, 2025)

    Recommendation from Magistrate Judge to District Court Judge to Deny in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former adjunct professor at the University of Arizona, sued the  university for violations of Title VII, the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and an Arizona public records law, after it declined to renew his teaching contract, which he alleged was due to complaints the university received about his advocacy on behalf of SaveCFSD, an organization he founded to combat “radical gender ideology” in his local school district. The magistrate judge rejected the university’s argument that plaintiff had failed to “timely exhaust his administrative remedies,” finding instead that the filing window was tolled until he received documents in response to his public records request. The magistrate judge also found that plaintiff had successfully pled facts that would allow one to conclude the university took actions to prevent the plaintiff from discovering his claims by “slow-walking his public records request” and falsely telling him that his contract would not be renewed because the university was going to hire a full-time faculty member to teach [his] classes.” The magistrate judge further found that the Eleventh Amendment was not a barrier to plaintiff’s constitutional claims since he was seeking prospective relief in the form of a declaratory judgment and reinstatement to his position. Finally, the magistrate judge agreed with the university that plaintiff’s Arizona public records law claim should be dismissed because plaintiff had failed to comply with “notice of claim” requirements, while noting the plaintiff had voluntarily agreed to withdraw his claim.

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation

  • Date:

    West v. Bd. of Trs. of Ala. Agric. & Mech. Univ. (N.D. Ala. Nov. 21, 2025)

    Opinion Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former bus driver for Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University, brought Title VII sex discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims against the university after she was terminated following complaints she made that her supervisor treated her more harshly than her male counterparts when she refused to work the late shift. The court denied summary judgment on her retaliatory discharge claim finding genuine issues of material fact remained, including (1) whether plaintiff engaged in protected activity; (2) whether the decision to terminate plaintiff’s employment pre-dated any protected activity; and (3) whether the stated reason for her termination was pretextual. However, the court granted the university’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim because plaintiff abandoned the claim.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination

  • Date:

    Span v. Pinal Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (D. Ariz. Nov. 19, 2025)

    Opinion Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a current professor and former Division Chair at Pinal County Community College District, filed a racial discrimination suit under Title VII alleging disparate treatment and retaliation claiming senior administrators had engaged in an “unwarranted” and “secret investigation” into his handling of a complaint regarding another faculty member and had taken other actions designed to “undermine” his ability to carry out his job duties. The court granted the college’s motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment or retaliation under Title VII. The court determined that despite a plethora of grievances, plaintiff failed to allege any adverse employment action when he remained in his position as Division Chair until the end of his term, and there were no changes to his compensation or the privileges or conditions of his employment. The court also found plaintiff’s claim for retaliation insufficient to survive summary judgment because, once again, he failed to show any adverse employment action and his voluntary withdrawal of his application for a promotion did not amount to being denied a promotion.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Levy v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. & A&M Coll. (La. App. Nov. 7, 2025)

    Opinion Vacating Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a tenured professor at Louisiana State University School of Law, sued the university seeking reinstatement to his teaching duties and an injunction blocking the university from infringing on his free speech or due process rights, after he was placed on paid administrative leave following vulgar and inappropriate classroom statements regarding the Governor of Louisiana and President of the United States. After the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the university appealed arguing that plaintiff’s claims were premature. Finding that plaintiff’s removal from the classroom was an “interim decision” that did not “disturb [his] tenure rights, employment, or pay,” the court concluded there was “no deprivation to be enjoined.” Accordingly, the court vacated the preliminary injunction and dismissed plaintiff’s claims without prejudice.

    Topics:

    Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Employee Discipline & Due Process | Faculty & Staff | Tenure

  • Date:

    Dukes v. Cent. Conn. State Univ. (Conn. Super. Nov. 7, 2025)

    Opinion Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, the former Director of Student Conduct at Central Connecticut State University, sued the university alleging he was wrongfully discharged following his arrest for domestic violence and three felony charges. Plaintiff claimed that his termination was based on concerns he raised with the university president regarding the university’s handling of Title IX cases from over a decade ago, which he expressed just five days before he was placed on leave, and asserted that his speech was protected from employer discipline. The court found that plaintiff’s leave of absence and subsequent termination were not related to the speech he expressed during his meeting with the president, but rather, based on his pending criminal charges. The court also found that plaintiff’s speech was not protected speech under the Connecticut State Constitution and further, that plaintiff’s speech was not a matter of public concern as plaintiff relied “entirely on his conclusory perception of mismanagement” and thus no genuine issue of material fact was present. 

    Topics:

    Employee Discipline & Due Process | Faculty & Staff

  • Date:

    McGowan v. Univ. of Mich. (E.D. Mich. Nov. 4, 2025)

    Opinion and Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former cook at the University of Michigan dining hall, sued the university claiming discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), retaliation under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and breach of contract and wrongful termination under state law, after she was terminated following her failure to submit forms required to request unpaid medical leave prior to the submission deadline. The court dismissed plaintiff’s claims, holding that the university was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity because the dining hall was “a department of the university and not a separate third-party entity” and therefore, was entitled to the same immunity as the university itself.

    Topics:

    Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Pesta v. Cleveland State Univ. (6th Cir. Nov. 4, 2025)

    Opinion Affirming Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff-Appellant, a former tenured professor at Cleveland State University, sued the university alleging violation of his First Amendment rights after he was investigated and terminated based on research-misconduct related to a controversial paper he co-authored. The trial court granted the university summary judgment, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that plaintiff was fired because of misconduct associated with his accessing restricted data from the NIH and not because of the content of his Global Ancestry paper. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that university officials were “reasonably alarmed by [plaintiff’s] cavalier handling of sensitive genomic data, misleading representations to the NIH about the nature of his research, failure to observe basic conflict-of-interest reporting, and the impact that his actions had on [the university] as a research institution reliant on the NIH.”

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Constitutional Issues | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Research | Research Misconduct | Students

  • Date:

    O’Neill v. Trs. of the Univ. of Pa. (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2025)

    Opinion Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former teaching assistant at the University of Pennsylvania, sued the university alleging hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under Title VII, after (1) she reported improper conduct from a male student in her lab; (2) the university responded with a safety plan; and (3) plaintiff abandoned her job after the university declined to make her requested changes to the safety plan. The court granted summary judgment for the university, finding that while it agreed with the plaintiff as to the nature and pervasiveness of the male student’s improper conduct, she had not provided evidence to allow a jury to find the university liable for creating a sex-based hostile work environment based on conduct of its non-employee male student.  The court also granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim, finding that the university acted promptly, by enforcing a safety plan the same day plaintiff complained of the student’s behavior, and thus “a reasonable jury could not find that university ‘knowingly permitted’ [the student] to harass [plaintiff].”

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination

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