Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    American Association of University Professors, et al., v. Marco Rubio, et al., (D. Mass. Sep. 30, 2025)

    Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Plaintiffs, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and several individual chapters and organizational plaintiffs, sued the federal government for violations of the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing that the government’s actions against noncitizen students and faculty who participated in pro-Palestinian protests amounted to an “ideological-deportation policy” in violation of their rights. Following a two-week trial, the court issued a 161-page ruling, holding that that the administration’s actions were an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment and also arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. On plaintiff’s First Amendment claims, the court found that the government had “engaged in a mode of enforcement leading to detaining, deporting, and revoking noncitizens’ visas solely on the basis of political speech, and with the intent of chilling such speech and that of others similarly situated.” The court held that these actions were unconstitutional and noted “the effect of these targeted deportation[s] [] continues [] to chill freedom of speech to this day.” In considering relief for the plaintiffs, the court concluded that “it will not do simply to order the Public Officials to cease and desist in the future,” but also outlined a number of “concerns” and “constraints” that will govern the upcoming remedy hearing. 

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation

  • Date:

    Barot v. St. John’s Univ. (E.D. N.Y. Sep. 18, 2025)

    Opinion Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former graduate assistant at St. John’s University, brought claims against the university for breach of contract, arguing he was required to work longer hours than was specified in his graduate assistant contract, and discrimination based on national origin, arguing the university required more work of graduate assistants on F1 visas, than other citizen graduate assistants. The court granted summary judgment for the university on plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim finding (1) plaintiff had waived his breach of contract claim by “repeatedly renew[ing]” the contract over multiple years and continuing to reap its benefits and (2) while a reasonable jury could conclude plaintiff “expressed unhappiness” with his working conditions, he provided no evidence that he believed the university was in breach of the contract. The court also rejected plaintiff’s discrimination claims, reasoning “[w]hile it may be that [the university] was in a position to exploit foreign graduate assistants . . . because of their status, the claim that it did exploit foreign [graduate assistants] or otherwise treated citizen [graduate assistants] preferentially is unsupported by any evidence beyond [plaintiff’s] own conclusory statements.”   

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Benefits | Faculty & Staff | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    Department of Education Ends Funding to Racially Discriminatory Discretionary Grant Programs at Minority-Serving Institutions (Sep. 10, 2025)

    The Department of Education (the Department) announced that it will end discretionary funding to several Minority-Serving Institutions (MSI) grant programs arguing that the programs impermissibly rely on racial quotas in distributing funding. The programs that the Department will cease to fund will include both 2025 new awards and non-competing continuations, and the Department will reprogram funding for approximately $350 million in discretionary funds. Programs for MSI that receive mandatory funding will continue to receive funding for 2025. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    Bowei Xi v. The Trs. of Purdue Univ. (N.D. Ind. Sep. 8, 2025)

    Opinion Granting Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a tenured professor at Purdue University, brought claims of discrimination and retaliation based on sex, race, and national origin after she was denied a promotion from associate to full professor. The university reasoned that plaintiff’s research record was not sufficient for a promotion and that plaintiff failed to provide any evidence of inconsistent treatment throughout the promotion application process. While plaintiff satisfied the first, third, and fourth prongs of the McDonnell Douglas test, the court agreed with the university that plaintiff was unable to satisfy the second prong of the test – i.e., that she was qualified for the promotion. Further, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was engaged in Title VII protected activity with regard to her retaliation claim, as her appeal of her application for promotion did not mention any form of discrimination. Finally, the court found that plaintiff did not show any evidence of an adverse action or causation.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Tenure

  • Date:

    Department of Education Finds George Mason University in Violation of Title VI (Aug. 22, 2025)

    The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (the Department) announced its finding that George Mason University violated Title VI by illegally using race and other immutable characteristics in university practices and policies, including hiring and promotion. Specifically, the Department received allegations that the University President created an atmosphere of surveillance pertaining to the University’s hiring decisions in relation to DEI objectives and policies that support racial preferencing. The Department issued a proposed Resolution Agreement, and the University has been given ten days to voluntarily resolve the violations. The proposed Resolution Agreement requires (i) the University President personally issue a statement to the campus community that the University will conduct all recruitment, hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions in compliance with Title VI, and disseminate information to the campus community explaining how to submit a discrimination complaint; (ii) include a personal apology from the University President for promoting unlawful discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion, and tenure processes; (iii) post the statement prominently on the University website and remove from its website any contrary statements; (iv) review its policies and revise any documents currently used in the University recruitment, hiring, and promotion process to ensure compliance with Title VI, and remove any provisions that require or encourage the use of race to favor or disfavor any candidate; (v) conduct an annual training of all individuals involved in and responsible for recruitment, hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions to impart that the University will not give preferences based on race, color, or national origin in those processes; and (vi) maintain all records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Agreement, making them available to the government upon request, and assign an individual to coordinate the University’s implementation of the Agreement with OCR.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | External Investigations | Investigations | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    Department of Education Title VI Investigation of Haverford College (Aug. 20, 2025)

    The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (the Department) announced an investigation of Haverford College for alleged Title VI violations. The Department initiated the investigation based on reports that the College failed to respond to multiple incidents of discrimination and harassment against Jewish and Israeli students. Specifically, allegations were made that senior leadership at the College told Jewish students that they should be “brave” in the face of anti-Semitic harassment and not expect to be “safe.” The investigation follows the Congressional hearing focused on antisemitism where campus leaders from the College among other institutions were called to testify.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | External Investigations | Investigations | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    American Federation of Teachers v. Department of Education (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2025)

    Memorandum Opinion Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), AFT Maryland Chapter, the American Sociological Association (ASA), and the Eugene, Oregon School District 4J brought suit against the federal government in February 2025 alleging that the Department of Education’s (the Department) February 14 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) principles and the associated certification requirement are procedurally and substantively improper under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), First Amendment, and Fifth Amendment. Upon seeking leave to amend their complaint, plaintiffs now allege that the DCL and the certification requirement encompass limitations that are “unclear and highly suggestive”, forcing plaintiffs to “choose between chilling their constitutionally protected speech and association or risk losing federal funds and being subject to prosecution.” The court found that the government did not follow notice and comment procedures in issuing the DCL and did not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The court reasoned that because both the DCL and the certification requirement “fail[ed] to account for facts, law, baseline conditions, or reliance interests” they acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in violation of the APA. The Department maintains that the DCL was a reminder for schools that discrimination is illegal, however, the court disagreed, finding instead that the guidance “initiated a sea change in how the Department of Education regulates educational practices and classroom conduct, causing millions of educators to reasonably fear that their lawful, and even beneficial, speech might cause them or their schools to be punished.” Regarding the certification requirement, the court agreed with plaintiffs that it violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process protections against unreasonably vague laws because the requirement “attach[ed] serious consequences to compliance with standardless terms.” Finally, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion in part related to their claim that the certification requirement is facially overbroad, finding that it does not unambiguously punish protected speech, because it has limiting factors, though the court noted that the factors were not clear. As such, the court held that the DCL and the certification requirement are both unlawful and vacated, pursuant to the APA.  

    Topics:

    Admissions | Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Diversity in Employment | Due Process | Faculty & Staff | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | First Amendment & Free Speech | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Students

  • Date:

    Columbia University Reaches $200 Million Settlement to End Federal Civil Rights Violation Investigation (Jul. 23, 2025)

    Columbia University reached a $200 million settlement with the U.S. government to resolve federal investigations into alleged civil rights violations. An additional $21 million will be paid to settle related investigations by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The investigations, initiated by the current administration, focused on allegations of antisemitism during campus protests and the University’s responses to related incidents. The settlement will result in a comprehensive review of the University’s programs in regional areas, specifically those related to the Middle East, and new faculty appointments to promote intellectual diversity. In a letter to the campus community, the University’s President maintains that the institution did not violate Title VI but nonetheless acknowledged “the very serious and painful challenges [the] institution has faced with antisemitism.” As part of the settlement, the University agreed to reforms that include enhanced campus safety measures, revised disciplinary processes, and expanded antidiscrimination measures. Additionally, the University has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, appointed Title VI and VII coordinators, and expanded training through the Office of Institutional Equity. An independent monitor will oversee the University’s compliance with the agreement. Finally, most of the University’s terminated federal grants have been restored along with eligibility for future grants and awards. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation

  • Date:

    EducationCounsel Executive Summary and Analysis on DOJ Civil Rights Guidance (Aug. 13, 2025)

    Executive summary of EducationCounsel analysis of the Department of Justice (DOJ) non-binding guidance issued on July 29th, 2025. The summary states EducationCounsel’s conclusion that “while some portions of DOJ’s guidance reflect current law, others misstate or overreach, creating a real risk of chilling lawful practices designed to ensure equal opportunity for all.” Specifically, the analysis centers on the following contended outcomes of the guidance: (i) delegitimizing efforts to address discrimination; (ii) delegitimizing federal court-endorsed diversity, equity & inclusion interests; (iii) delegitimizing lawful race-neutral means that advance diversity, equity & inclusion goals; and (iv) misguiding the field through misleading examples.  

    Topics:

    Admissions | Athletics & Sports | Compliance & Risk Management | Compliance Programs, Policies & Procedures | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Diversity in Employment | Faculty & Staff | Gender Equity in Athletics | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Sex Discrimination | Students

  • Date:

    Department of Justice Finds George Washington University in Violation of Title VI (Aug, 12, 2025)

    The Department of Justice (DOJ) found George Washington University in violation of Title VI following an investigation into the University’s response to incidents of antisemitic discrimination and harassment of Jewish and Israeli students. Specifically, the DOJ found deliberate indifference to the complaints the University received, despite actual notice of the misconduct. In the notice letter, the DOJ cited examples of antisemitic and disruptive protests, and cited the establishment of an encampment, constituting a hostile environment that was objectively offensive, severe, and pervasive, such that Jewish students were afraid to attend class in light of the alleged harassment, abuse, intimidation, and assault. The University has been offered an opportunity to enter into a voluntary resolution agreement to ensure immediate remediation and was given the deadline of August 22, 2025. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | External Investigations | Investigations | Race and National Origin 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