FILTERS
- Age Discrimination
- Disability Discrimination
- Diversity in Employment
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
- Race and National Origin Discrimination
- Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
- Retaliation
- Sex Discrimination
- Veterans Discrimination
- Academic Freedom & Employee Speech
- Background Checks & Employee Verification
- Collective Bargaining
- Diversity in Employment
- Employee Benefits
- Employee Discipline & Due Process
- Employee Sexual Misconduct
- Employment of Foreign Nationals
- Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Categorization of Employees
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Intellectual Property
- Reproductive Health Issues
- Research
- Retaliation
- Tenure
- Veterans & Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Ethical Obligations of Higher Education Lawyers
- Evaluation of Operations & Staff in the General Counsel’s Office
- External Counsel
- Law Office Management
- Law Office Technology
- Law Office Training
- Roles & Responsibilities of the General Counsel
- Wellness & Stress Management
- Academic Performance and Misconduct
- Admissions
- Distressed & Suicidal Students
- Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans
- Hazing
- Internships, Externships, & Clinical Work
- Student Athlete Issues
- Student Conduct
- Student Housing
- Student Organizations
- Student Speech & Campus Unrest
- Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
- Uncategorized
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 | ResearchDate:
City of Seattle v. Trump (W.D. Wash. Oct. 31, 2025)
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, the City of Seattle, sued the Trump administration challenging Executive Order No. 14173 (“DEI Order”) and Executive Order No. 14168 (“Gender Order”), arguing that actions taken by the administration to condition grant funding based on the terms of the orders violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as contrary to constitutional right, in excess of statutory authority, and as arbitrary and capricious. The court held that the plaintiff was likely to prevail on its APA claims finding (1) by imposing the terms of the DEI and Gender Orders on federal grants, the administration had “run afoul of the Separation of Powers doctrine” and therefore, acted in excess of statutory authority; and (2) by requiring grantees to comply with its own interpretation of “discrimination,” rather than what was required under the law, defendants’ actions were arbitrary and capricious. The court rejected defendants’ argument that the funding conditions contemplated by the orders “simply” required grant recipients to comply with current federal antidiscrimination laws, and noted several statements from agency officials interpreting these laws “in a manner . . . inconsistent with well-established legal precedent.” The court granted the preliminary injunction and enjoined defendants from enforcing section 3(b)(iv) of DEI Order and section 3(g) of the Gender Order against the City of Seattle.
Topics:
Contracts | False Claims Act (FCA) | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | ResearchDate:
U.S. Department of Justice Memorandum on Civil Rights Fraud Initiative (May 19, 2025)
U.S. Department of Justice (the Department) issued a memorandum from the Deputy Attorney General on the “Civil Rights Fraud Initiative,” which will utilize the False Claims Act (FCA) to investigate and pursue claims against any recipients of federal funds that knowingly violate federal civil rights laws. The Initiative will be co-led by the Civil Division’s Fraud Section and the Civil Rights Division and assigns each of the 93 United States Attorney’s Offices to identify an Assistant United States Attorney to advance the Initiative. In addition to engaging with other federal agencies such as the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Labor, the memo encourages anyone with knowledge of discrimination by federal-funding recipients to report the information and highlights the potential for monetary benefit as a whistleblower. It provides a hypothetical example of violation of the FCA by postsecondary institutions, stating “a university that accepts federal funds could violate the False Claims Act when it encourages antisemitism, refuses to protect Jewish students, allows men to intrude into women’s bathrooms, or requires women to compete against men in athletic competitions. Colleges and universities cannot accept federal funds while discriminating against other students.” The memo goes on to state that the FCA is implicated whenever federal-funding recipients or contractors certify compliance with civil rights laws while knowingly engaging in race-based preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities, including through DEI programs.
Topics:
False Claims Act (FCA) | ResearchDate:
United States ex rel. Ruggeri v. Magee-Women’s Research Inst. & Found. (W.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2024)
Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former Director of Grants and Contracts at the Magee-Women’s Research Institute and Foundation (Foundation), brought this qui tam action against the Foundation, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), and the UPMC Magee-Women’s Hospital, alleging accounting practices that were falsely certified as compliant with National Institutes of Health grants requirements. She further alleged that her termination was in retaliation for her negative assessment of the grants compliance. The court dismissed the claims against UPMC and the Hospital, finding that although they leased employees and provided space and administrative services to the Foundation, plaintiff failed to allege with specificity any action beyond association taken in the alleged false claim scheme. In permitting her fraud claims to proceed, the court found plaintiff had alleged with sufficient particularity (1) that the Foundation knew that its accounting systems were inadequate to meet NIH requirements and (2) that Foundation and University officials, including Principal Investigators from the University, improperly transferred other costs to the grants in order to spend them down. The court further found that plaintiff’s assertion that NIH investigated her allegations and altered how it interacted with the Foundation sufficient to allege materiality. In permitting her retaliation claim to proceed, the court noted the close temporal proximity of her termination to her delivery of her compliance assessment to a member of the Foundation’s Board.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | False Claims Act (FCA) | Research | RetaliationDate:
Monroe v. Fort Valley State Univ. (11th Cir. Feb. 15, 2024)
Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a former director of the Head Start program at Fort Valley State University, brought False Claims Act retaliation claims against the University after she was terminated five months into her tenure for taking actions without properly vetting them with senior leadership. In affirming dismissal of the claims, the Eleventh Circuit, aligning with the other circuits to have addressed the issue, found that Congress did not abrogate sovereign immunity in the FCA’s anti-retaliation provisions and held that the Regents of the University System of Georgia function as an arm of the state in its administration of the Head Start program.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | False Claims Act (FCA) | Research | RetaliationDate:
Settlement Agreement between U.S. Dep’t of Justice and Yale Univ. (Sep. 20, 2023)
Settlement Agreement under the False Claims Act between the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Yale University. This agreement resolves allegations that a University researcher who received compensation from the VA failed to disclose the patents he and four co-inventors received, which disclosure was required by a Cooperative Technology Administration Agreement between the University and the VA. Of note, the VA funding was acknowledged in the patent applications. Under the Agreement, the University and researcher agreed to pay $1,507,743.67, which included restitution for royalties not shared with the VA.
Topics:
False Claims Act (FCA) | Research
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.