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:
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:
State of Washington, et al., v. Department of Education, et al., (W.D. Wash. Oct. 27, 2025)
Topics:
Admissions | Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Distressed & Suicidal Students | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Sexual Misconduct | StudentsDate:
ACE Letter to Congress on Minority Serving Institution Funding (Oct. 3, 2025)
The American Council on Education (ACE) along with 20 higher education associations sent a letter to congressional leaders requesting an increase in funding for Minority-Serving Institutions (MSI) for fiscal year 2026. The letter also urges Congress to reinstate funding that was cut during fiscal year 2025. The letter explains that the abrupt cut in funding will cause irreparable harm to hundreds of institutions and emphasizes the bipartisan support the funding has maintained for the last several decades.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | ResearchDate:
White House Letter on Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education (Oct. 1, 2025)
The White House sent a letter to nine universities along with a proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” outlining the “priorities of the U.S. Government” in its engagements with universities. The letter suggests that by signing the Compact, the “Federal Government would have assurance that signatory institutions are complying with civil rights law and pursuing Federal priorities with vigor,” which would in turn “yield multiple positive benefits for the school, including allowance for increased overhead payments where feasible, substantial and meaningful federal grants, and other federal partnerships.” Among its many obligations, the Compact would require institutions to: (1) prohibit the considerations of factors “such as sex, ethnicity, race, nationality, political views, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious associations, or proxies for any of those factors” — either “explicitly or implicitly” in any decision related to admissions or financial support; (2) commit to fostering a vibrant marketplace of ideas, while at the same time, “transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, or even spark violence against conservative ideas”; (3) maintain institutional neutrality at all levels of their administration; (4) commit to freezing tuition rates charged to American students for the next five years; (5) limit international undergraduate student enrollments to no more than 15 percent of the student population; and (6) commit “to defining” male and female according to “reproductive function and biological processes.” The Compact requires the President, Provost and Head of Admissions to certify the university’s compliance on an annual basis. Adherence to the agreement will also be subject to review by the Department of Justice, with universities found to have willfully or negligently violated the agreement subject to a loss of access to “the benefits of this agreement” and other penalties, which may include requiring the return of “all monies advanced by the U.S. government during the year of any violation.” The letter offers the schools the opportunity to provide “limited, targeted feedback” on the Compact (which the authors note is “largely in final form”) by October 20, 2025, and announces the White House’s goal of having a signed agreement no later than November 21, 2025.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | ResearchDate:
DCL Reminder Regarding Prohibited Use of Federal Grants Funds for Lobbying and Allowable Membership Costs (Sep. 30, 2025)
The Department of Education (the Department) published a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) reminding institutions of the legal restrictions on using federal grant funds for lobbying including that the use of federal grant funds for membership dues to professional or trade organizations, including national associations, remains strictly prohibited. The DCL notes that while 2 C.F.R. § 200.450(c) allows the use of federal funds for membership in business, technical, and professional organizations, “that allowance does not extend to organizations whose primary purpose is lobbying . . .[n]or does it allow payment of dues to any organization that fails to separate lobbying from non-lobbying costs.” The DCL further states that it is the responsibility of the grantee to ensure that any membership fee funds are not used for lobbying, even when the membership organization’s primary purpose is not lobbying. Grantees are also responsible for maintaining adequate documentation to demonstrate compliance and avoid payment of dues to organizations that do not report the proportion of their activities that are dedicated to lobbying. The DCL concludes by stating failure to comply may result in disallowed costs, audit findings, program reviews, and additional oversight or enforcement actions by the Department up to the termination of a grant.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | ResearchDate:
ACE Letter to Congress on FY 2026 Appropriations and Funding Implementation (Sep. 30 2025)
The American Council on Education (ACE) along with 60 higher education associations sent a letter to congressional leaders requesting that they include clear legislative language in the final fiscal year 2026 appropriations bills mandating that the administration allocate funds as directed by Congress. The letter notes the need for increased stability, certainty, and transparency for colleges and universities about the availability of federal funding, particularly after the significant disruptions and terminations of funding in recent months.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | ResearchDate:
Thakur v. Trump (N.D. Cal. Sep. 22, 2025)
Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, a group of researchers at the University of California, sought a preliminary injunction blocking the Department of Defense, Department of Transportation, and Department of Health and Human Services from the mass termination of multi-year research grants via form letter, following the court’s June decision to grant a preliminary injunction blocking the termination of grants at three other agencies, which the Ninth Circuit upheld. Rejecting the government’s argument that plaintiffs’ claims belonged in the Court of Federal Claims, the court distinguished the Supreme Court’s recent decision in NIH v. APHA, reasoning (1) plaintiffs, as individual researchers, were not parties to the grant agreement, and thus, could not obtain any relief from the Court of Federal Claims and (2) plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims were well established to be beyond the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction. The court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the three agencies’ termination of their grants was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court further found that, despite troubling evidence of viewpoint discrimination across all three agencies, plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim with respect to the actions of the Department of Transportation. The court concluded plaintiffs had satisfied the other prongs necessary for a preliminary injunction on these claims and granted their request for relief.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | ResearchDate:
Department of Education Withdrawal of Notices Inviting Applications (Sep. 18, 2025)
The Department of Education (the Department) announced its withdrawal of the June 3, 2025 and July 14, 2025 Notice Inviting Applications (NIAs) for new awards for the Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Part A (ANNH Part A), Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions Part A (AANAPISI Part A), Strengthening Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions Part A (NASNTI Part A) and Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions programs (DHSI). This withdrawal follows the Justice Department’s announcement that it will no longer defend from legal challenge programs providing funding for HSIs, which they allege are unconstitutional.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | ResearchDate:
Department of Education Grant Investment in HBCUs and TCCUs (Sep. 15, 2025)
The Department of Education announced its plan to redistribute existing discretionary funding totaling $495 million to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs). This funding will be in addition to the anticipated fiscal year 2025 funding.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | 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.