Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
7/11/2025
Clarification of Federal Public Benefits Under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Jul. 11, 2025)
The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) has issued a new interpretive rule in response to Executive Order (E.O.) 14218 “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders”, clarifying that federally funded programs providing postsecondary education, adult education, and career and technical education are “federal public benefits” under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). Recipients of federal funds must verify immigration status unless the benefits fall under the protected category of “basic public education” as established in Plyler v. Doe, which applies only to K–12 education for undocumented individuals. The Department rescinded its previous 1997 guidance, reasoning that it narrowly interpreted PRWORA and failed to account for Congress’s broader intent; emphasizing that Plyler does not apply to adults, post-secondary education, or dual enrollment programs that go beyond basic public education. Grantees administering such programs should comply with immigration verification requirements using approved methods like the DHS SAVE system to ensure they do not benefit non-qualifying individuals. However, nonprofit charitable organizations remain exempt from verification under 8 U.S.C. § 1642(d). This interpretive rule is non-binding and does not require formal reporting, however, the Department has noted that such information “may be referenced when enforcing or monitoring grantee and subgrantee compliance with PRWORA.” Finally, grantees may have received a memorandum with additional details.
Topics:
Admissions | Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Immigration | International Students | Students
Date:
7/10/2025
“Barbara” v. Donald J. Trump (D.N.H July 10, 2025)
Order granting Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class Certification. Petitioners, several individuals impacted by Executive Order (EO) 14160 “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” request class certification and asked the court to enjoin enforcement of the EO, alleging that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, in which the Court held that universal preliminary injunctions were “broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue,” petitioners immediately moved for “certification of a class [consisting] of all current and future children who are or will be denied United States citizenship by [the] Executive Order…, and their parents.”’ The court provisionally certified a narrower class consisting of “all current and future persons who are born on or after February 20, 2025, where (1) 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 said person’s birth, or (2) 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 said person’s birth.” Finally, the court granted petitioners request for a preliminary injunction barring respondents from enforcing the EO against the class while litigation is pending.
Topics:
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Students
Date:
7/10/2025
Department of Education Opens Title VI Investigation into George Mason University (Jul. 10, 2025)
U.S. Department of Education has announced a Title VI investigation into George Mason University after multiple professors at the University filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) alleging that the University illegally used race-based hiring and promotion practices from 2020 through the present. The complaint alleged that the University created a racially hostile environment in violation of Title VI by way of several policies and practices that constituted racial discrimination, including the University’s DEI policies, the presence of “Equity Advisors,” the use of race-conscious promotion criteria, and the creation of diversity hiring directives. Additionally, the complaint makes note of a campus-wide email sent by the University president in March 2025 announcing the renaming of the “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” office and stating that no University policy changes were needed to comply with civil rights laws.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Diversity in Employment | External Investigations | Faculty & Staff | Investigations | Race and National Origin Discrimination
Date:
7/10/2025
Department of labor New Interpretation on Personal and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Jul. 10, 2025)
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced that its new interpretation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), reasoning that it improperly extended certain federal public benefits to illegal aliens. Under the new guidance, all grantees funded through the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) and related programs must verify valid work authorization before providing participant-level services. The guidance applies to programs including WIOA Title I Adult, Dislocated Worker, Youth programs (including statewide employment and training services funded by the Governor reserve), WIOA National Dislocated Worker Grants, Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service, Reentry Employment Opportunities and other programs authorized under Section 169 of WIOA, YouthBuild, the National Farmworker Jobs Program, and the Senior Community Service Employment Program. Additionally, The DOL has rescinded Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 10-23, and replacement guidance has been provided to aid in the work authorization verification for grant programs administered by the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and applies to: State Workforce Agencies, State Workforce Administrators, State Workforce Liaisons, State and Local Workforce Board Chairs and Directors, American Job Center Director, State Labor Commissioners, WIO Section 167 Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Program Grantees, WIOA Section 169 Reentry Employment Opportunities Grantees and Other Demonstration Programs, WIOA Section 171 Youthbuild Grantees, WIOA National Dislocated Worker Grant Program Grantees, and Senior Community Service Employment Program Grantees. This policy change is intended to align with Executive Order (E.O.) 14218 “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders” and is in alignment with the Department of Education’s new interpretive rule rescinding the previous 1997 Dear Colleague Letter on PRWORA.
Topics:
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Governance | Government Relations & Community Affairs | Immigration | International Students
Date:
7/10/2025
HHS Rescission of 1998 interpretation of Personal and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Jul. 10, 2025)
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it has formally rescinded the 1998 interpretation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), reasoning that it improperly extended certain federal public benefits to illegal aliens. The newly revised list of programs now classified as “federal public benefits” under PRWORA include: Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics, Community Mental Health Services Block Grant, Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), Head Start, Health Center Program, Health Workforce Programs not otherwise previously covered (including grants, loans, scholarships, payments, and loan repayments), Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Treatment, Prevention, and Recovery Support Services Programs administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness Grant Program, Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services Block Grant, Title IV-E Educational and Training Voucher Program, Title IV-E Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program, Title IV-E Prevention Services Program, and Title X Family Planning Program. The policy change is intended to align with Executive Order (E.O.) 14218 “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders” and in alignment with the Department of Education’s new interpretive rule rescinding the previous 1997 Dear Colleague Letter on PRWORA.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Distressed & Suicidal Students | Employee Benefits | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Health Care & Insurance | Immigration | International Students | Sexual Misconduct | Students
Date:
7/10/2025
U.S. Department of Agriculture Adopts New Interpretation of “Federal Public Benefit” Under Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) (Jul. 10, 2025)
The Department of Agriculture (USDA or “the Department”) has released a notice outlining its updated interpretation of the term “federal public benefit” under 8 U.S.C. § 1611, as defined in Title IV of PRWORA. This change aims to restrict access to federal public benefits for individuals who do not qualify as “qualified aliens” under PRWORA, a category that includes lawful permanent residents, refugees, asylees, and certain other humanitarian immigrants, but excludes undocumented individuals, most Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, and temporary visa holders—absent specific statutory exceptions. Now adopting a plain-meaning approach, the USDA interprets “federal public benefit” broadly to encompass any grant, loan, contract, or license issued by a USDA agency or funded through federal appropriations, without regard to the program’s purpose. This includes direct aid as well as subgrants, subcontracts, indirect recipients, and SNAP-authorized retailers. In conjunction with this notice, the USDA issued the “American First Memorandum for USDA Arrangements and Research Security;” this directive mandates a comprehensive USDA-wide review of current relationships, funding, and arrangements with foreign entities by August 7th. The directive establishes a new justification process and security protocols to ensure USDA resources exclusively support American interests and prevent “the expenditure of American taxpayer funds to help foreign competitors out-produce, out-compete, and out-innovate the United States.” The policy change is intended to align with Executive Order (E.O.) 14218 “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders” and in alignment with the Department of Education’s new interpretive rule rescinding the previous 1997 Dear Colleague Letter on PRWORA.
Topics:
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Students
Date:
6/27/2025
Trump v. CASA, Inc. (Jun. 27, 2025)
Opinion granting Petitioners’ Applications for a Partial Stay of Universal Injunctions. Respondents—individuals, organizations, and states consolidated from Trump v. State of Washington, Trump v. State of New Jersey, and Trump v. CASA, Inc.—originally filed suit to challenge the validity of President Trump’s Executive Order (EO) 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”, which aimed to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants. Federal district courts in the states of Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts blocked the EO through preliminary injunctions. Upon petitioners’ application for a partial stay of the universal injunction, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed only whether federal courts have the authority to issue universal injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789, and not whether the EO is legal under the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court held that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” Undertaking a historical analysis of the remedies contemplated at the time of the enactment of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Court explained that nationwide injunctions have been historically used in the U.S. to limit relief to only the parties in the action and that universal injunctions are not “sufficiently ‘analogous’ to any relief available in the court of equity in England at the time of the founding.” The Court further stated that Congress has not granted federal courts the power to issue universal injunctions. Accordingly, the Court instructed the lower courts in each consolidated case to revisit their injunctions to ensure that they extend no further than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs with standing to sue. Executive Order 14160 will now take effect on July 27, 2025.
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:
6/23/2025
Wax v. University of Pennsylvania (E.D. Pa June 23, 2025)
Memorandum Opinion Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff Amy Wax, a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, brought claims against the University alleging breach of contract, racial discrimination, and false light invasion of privacy. Plaintiff brought this suit after undergoing the University’s disciplinary process where it found that she had engaged in “flagrant unprofessional conduct” and was sanctioned to a one-year suspension, removal of her chair title, a public reprimand, and a limited decrease in salary. Plaintiff alleged that the University failed to adhere to its own disciplinary process and sought to enjoin the University from enforcing the proscribed disciplinary sanctions. The sanctions stem from a series of public remarks concerning race, gender and sexuality that the University determined violated professional expectations and norms, further noting that “she was in dereliction of her scholarly responsibilities, violated privacy policies, and had not treated students with equitable due respect.” Plaintiff alleged that the sanctions cause irreparable reputational and professional harm and have a “chilling” effect on her right to free speech. However, the court found that plaintiff’s First Amendment arguments are ill-fit for the case at hand, as she alleged claims for breach of contract, not First Amendment claims. Further finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate imminent, irreparable non-monetary harm, and her example of a cancelled scheduled radio appearance as unconvincing, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, calling her claimed harm “speculative” and stating that “an injunction will not erase [her] record.”
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech
Date:
6/5/2025
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Jun. 5, 2025)
Vacatur and Remand. Plaintiff, a straight, white woman employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004 filed a Title VII claim against her employer alleging she was denied a management promotion, and demoted because of her sexual orientation. Plaintiff interviewed for a new management position in 2019, but her employer hired another candidate who was lesbian. Plaintiff was later demoted from her role, and her employer then filled that role with a gay man. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed that decision. The two courts reviewed plaintiff’s claim under the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green burden-shifting framework and concluded that plaintiff failed to meet her prima facie burden because she had not shown “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” Both lower courts reasoned that because plaintiff is a straight, white woman, she was required to make the showing “in addition to the usual ones for establishing the prima-facie case.” While the Sixth Circuit “background circumstances” rule required plaintiffs who are members of a majority group to bear an additional burden during the first step of the application of the framework, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not change based on whether the plaintiff is a member of a majority group. The Court wrote that the so-called “background circumstances” rule ignored its instruction to avoid inflexible applications of the prima facie standard. In its unanimous decision, the Court resolved the prior circuit split regarding the correct evidentiary standard to apply to majority-group plaintiffs’ claims. Therefore, the Court’s decision aligns the standard to be applied to all plaintiffs, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for application of the proper standard.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Diversity in Employment | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Faculty & Staff
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

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.