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:
Florance v. Barnett (7th Cir. Oct. 25, 2023)
Order affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a former Indiana University School of Medicine student, brought due process claims against multiple University officials related to student loan collections. Plaintiff took a student loan through a program administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Later, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), rated him as having a permanent and total disability. As he appeared to be gainfully employed and did not meet the statutory requirements for cancelation, the University declined to recommend cancelation of the loan and initiated collections proceedings against him. After plaintiff disputed HHS’s initial denial of his request for cancelation, HHS canceled his loan, and the University dismissed the collections case. In affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, the Seventh Circuit held that he did not have a protected interest in loan cancellation since under the HHS loan program whether a borrower qualifies for cancelation due to a disability is a discretionary determination left to HHS, not an entitlement determined by the VA’s disability rating.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | StudentsDate:
ACE Letter to ED re: FAFSA Release Date (Oct. 13, 2023)
Letter from the American Council on Education (ACE) and 11 other higher education associations to the Department of Education requesting a public release date for the new Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form. In requesting a firm release date for the new FAFSA form, ACE noted the need for institutions to plan for a smooth rollout, including through training for staff and outreach to appropriate stakeholders.
Topics:
Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | StudentsDate:
Career Colls. and Schs. of Texas v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ. (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 2023)
Order granting Plaintiff-Appellant’s Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal. Plaintiff, the Career Colleges and Schools of Texas, sued to challenge borrower-defense and closed-school provisions of Final Regulations on Institutional Eligibility Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended; Student Assistance General Provisions; Federal Perkins Loan Program; Family Education Loan Program; and William D. Ford Direct Loan Program, which became effective on July 1, 2023. The Fifth Circuit granted plaintiff-appellant’s request for an emergency injunction and ordered that the case be heard during the panel’s sitting commencing November 6, 2023.
Topics:
Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | StudentsDate:
U.S. Dep.’t of Education Guidance on FAFSA Changes (Aug. 4, 2023)
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) on FAFSA Simplification Act Changes for Implementation in 2024-25. The DCL “explains the final changes to the need analysis formulas and the calculation of Pell Grant awards that the Department is implementing beginning with the 2024-25 Award Year” to complete the implementation of the FAFSA Simplification Act. It highlights the transition from Expected Family Contribution to the new Student Aid Index, new requirements related to the use of Federal Tax Information, and changes to the Need Analysis Formulas and calculations of Pell Grant Awards.
Topics:
Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | StudentsDate:
Biden v. Nebraska (U.S. June 30, 2023)
Opinion and Order reversing the judgment of the Eastern District of Missouri and remanding. Six States, including Missouri, challenged the Secretary of Education’s plan to discharge student loan debut under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003. The district court dismissed the case, finding the States lacked standing, but the Eighth Circuit granted an emergency injunction pending appeal. In reversing the judgment of the district court, the Supreme Court found that Missouri had standing because the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), a public instrumentality, would lose an estimated $44 million in fees as a result of the Secretary’s plan. The Court then held that the plan cannot fairly be interpreted as either a “waiver” or “modification” of the provisions of the student financial assistance programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act and, therefore, exceeds the Secretary’s statutory authority under the HEROES Act. It further held under the “major questions doctrine” that in the absence of clear statutory authorization a decision of such “magnitude and consequence” must be reserved to Congress. In the related case, Department of Education v. Brown (U.S. June 30, 2023), the Court vacated the judgment of the Northern District of Texas, finding that the respondents—two borrowers who would not receive the full benefit of the Secretary’s plan and who asserted they had been denied the opportunity to participate in a notice and comment rulemaking process—lacked standing.
Topics:
Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | 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.