FILTERS



Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments


  • Date:

    U.S. Department of Education Announces Federal Contract & Grant Review of Harvard University (Mar. 31, 2025)

    U.S. Department of Education (the Department), Health and Human Services (HHS), and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) announced their plan, as part of the ongoing efforts of the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, to complete a comprehensive review of federal contracts and grants at Harvard University and its affiliates. The Department wrote that the review is being conducted to ensure the University is in compliance with federal regulations, including its civil rights responsibilities. The University has been instructed to submit a comprehensive list of all contracts–both direct and through affiliates–between their institution and the federal government, which were not included in the initial review.  

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    Department of Justice Announces Admissions Policies investigations (Mar. 27, 2025)

    The U.S. Department of Justice (the Department) announced a compliance review investigation directed by Attorney General Pamela Bondi into the admissions policies at Stanford University, University of California, Berkeley, University of California, Los Angeles, and University of California, Irvine. The investigation is part of efforts to advance President Trump’s Executive Orders on ending Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellow of Harvard Coll. (2023).

    Topics:

    Admissions | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Students

  • Date:

    American Association of University Professors v. Marco Rubio (D. Mass. Mar. 25, 2025)

    Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) , the AAUP Harvard Faculty Chapter, the AAUP at New York University, Rutgers AAUP – American Federation of Teachers, and the middle East Studies Association allege that defendants’ have established an “ideological-deportation policy,” in light of their announced intention to carry out large-scale arrests, detentions, and deportations of noncitizen students and faculty who participate in pro-Palestinian protests and other related expression and association, which plaintiffs aver has far-reaching implications for expressive and associational rights and effectively prevents or impedes plaintiffs’ members from hearing from, and associating with, their noncitizen students and colleagues. Plaintiffs brought this action following the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate. Plaintiffs allege that the ideological-deportation policy violates the First Amendment because it entails the arrest, detention, and deportation of noncitizen students and faculty on the basis of, or in retaliation for, their political viewpoints and because the policy is not narrowly tailored to any compelling government interest. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants’ threats to punish constitutionally protected speech violates the First Amendment and defendants’ threat to arrest, detain, and deport noncitizen students and faculty based on their political viewpoints violates the First Amendment because the threats are coercive and would chill individuals of ordinary firmness from exercising their expressive and associational rights. Plaintiffs further allege that the policy violates the Fifth Amendment because it invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement as it fails to give noncitizen students and faculty fair warning as to what speech and association the government believes to be grounds for arrest, detention, and deportation. Finally, plaintiffs allege that the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to constitutional right, and because it exceeds defendants’ statutory authority. Plaintiffs request that the Court declare that the policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments and the APA and set the policy aside; enjoin defendants from implementing or enforcing the policy–including, without limitation, through investigation, surveillance, arrest, detention, deportation, or any other adverse action; declare that defendants’ threats to arrest, detain, and deport noncitizen students and faculty based on their political viewpoints violates the First Amendment, and enjoin defendants from continuing to make those threats; and to the extent defendants rely on the security and related grounds of inadmissibility, including the “endorse or espouse” and foreign policy provisions, as the basis for carrying out the ideological-deportation policy, declare that those provision violate the First and Fifth Amendments as applied, and enjoin defendants from applying those provisions.

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Announcement from Columbia University on its Work to Combat Discrimination, Harassment, and Antisemitism (Mar. 21, 2025)

    In response to the immediate cancellation of approximately $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University from the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Education (ED), and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), the University published its comprehensive strategy to make its campus safer, more welcoming, and respectful of the rights of all. In the announcement, the University wrote: It is committed to rigorous and impartial enforcement of its rules and antidiscrimination policies to ensure a safe campus environment and continuation of all academic functions; it plans to do a comprehensive review of its admission procedures; hold a greater commitment to institutional neutrality; develop a K-12 curriculum on how to have difficult conversations and dialogue across differences and topics related to antisemitism; develop improvements to the disciplinary process, including the University Judicial Board; clarifying that protests in academic buildings, and other places necessary for the conduct of University activities, are generally not acceptable under the Rules of University Conduct because of the likelihood of disrupting academic activities; all individuals who engage in protests or demonstrations, including those who wear face masks or face coverings, must, when asked, present their University identification to the satisfaction of a University Delegate or Public Safety Officer; public safety has determined that face masks or face coverings are not allowed for the purpose of concealing one’s identity in the commission of violations of University policies or state, municipal, or federal laws; the University has hired 36 special officers who will have the ability to remove individuals from campus and/or arrest them when appropriate; review from the Senior Vice Provost on educational programs to ensure they are comprehensive and balanced as well as steward the creation of new programs, curricular changes, etc. The Announcement concludes by stating that all of these steps are made to further Columbia’s basic mission to provide a safe and thriving environment for research and education while simultaneously preserving its commitment to academic freedom and institutional integrity.

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    OCR initiates Title VI investigations into 52 Universities (Mar. 14, 2025)

    The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened investigations into 45 universities under Title VI following OCR’s Dear Colleague Letter (Feb. 14, 2025) (DCL). The investigations arise from allegations that institutional partnerships with “The Ph.D. Project” violate Title VI due to its allegedly race-based program eligibility restrictions. OCR also opened investigations into six additional universities for allegedly awarding impermissible race-based scholarships and into one program, which allegedly segregates students on the basis of race. The institutions under investigation include: Arizona State University – Main Campus; Boise State University; Cal Poly Humboldt; California State University – San Bernadino; Carnegie Mellon University; Clemson University; Cornell University; Duke University; Emory University; George Mason University; Georgetown University; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); Montana State University-Bozeman; New York University (NYU); Rice University; Rutgers University; The Ohio State University – Main Campus; Towson University; Tulane University; University of Arkansas – Fayetteville; University of California-Berkeley; University of Chicago; University of Cincinnati – Main Campus; University of Colorado – Colorado Springs; University of Delaware; University of Kansas; University of Kentucky; University of Michigan-Ann Arbor; University of Minnesota-Twin Cities; University of Nebraska at Omaha; University of New Mexico – Main Campus; University of North Dakota – Main Campus; University of North Texas – Denton; University of Notre Dame; University of NV – Las Vegas; University of Oregon; University of Rhode Island; University of Utah; University of Washington-Seattle; University of Wisconsin-Madison; University of Wyoming; Vanderbilt University; Washington State University; Washington University in St. Louis; Yale University; Grand Valley State University; Ithaca College; New England College of Optometry; University of Alabama; University of Minnesota, Twin Cities; University of South Florida; University of Oklahoma; and Tulsa School of Community Medicine. 

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    OCR Title VI Letter to 60 Institutions of Higher Education (Mar. 10, 2025)

    The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) sent letters to sixty postsecondary institutions warning of potential enforcement actions if they fail to fulfill their obligations under Title VI to protect Jewish students. Institutions that received letters include: American University; Arizona State University; Boston University; Brown University; California State University, Sacramento; Chapman University; Columbia University; Cornell University; Drexel University; Eastern Washington University; Emerson College; George Mason University; Harvard University; Illinois Wesleyan University; Indiana University, Bloomington; Johns Hopkins University; Lafayette College; Lehigh University; Middlebury College; Muhlenberg College; Northwestern University; Ohio State University; Pacific Lutheran University; Pomona College; Portland State University; Princeton University; Rutgers University; Rutgers University-Newark; Santa Monica College; Sarah Lawrence College; Stanford University; State University of New York Binghamton, Rockland, and Purchase; Swarthmore College; Temple University; The New School; Tufts University; Tulane University; Union College; University of California Davis; University of California San Diego; University of California Santa Barbara; University of California, Berkeley; University of Cincinnati; University of Hawaii at Manoa; University of Massachusetts Amherst; University of Michigan; University of Minnesota, Twin Cities; University of North Carolina; University of South Florida; University of Southern California; University of Tampa; University of Tennessee; University of Virginia; University of Washington-Seattle; University of Wisconsin, Madison; Wellesley College; Whitman College; and Yale University.  

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Secretary McMahon: Our Department’s Final Mission (Mar. 3, 2025)

    U.S. Department of Education (“the Department”) Secretary Linda McMahon set out her vision of the Department’s “Final Mission,” which she framed as “send[ing] education back to the states and empower[ing] all parents to choose an excellent education for their children.” Secretary McMahon enumerated three “convictions” to guide the Department’s work, including that (1) “[p]arents are the primary decision makers in their children’s education,” (2) “[t]axpayer-funded education should refocus on meaningful learning in math, reading, science, and history – not divisive DEI programs and gender ideology,” and (3) “[p]ostsecondary education should be a path to a well-paying career aligned with workforce needs.” 

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    National Education Association v. U.S. Department of Education (D.N.H. Mar. 3, 2025)

    Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, the National Education Association and the National Education Association–New Hampshire, challenge the Dear Colleague Letter (Feb. 14, 2025) (DCL) and request that the Court declare that the DCL violates the First and Fifth Amendments; that it is in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law, contrary to constitutional right, in excess of statutory jurisdiction, and without observance of procedure required by law; hold it to be unlawful, vacate, and set aside the “End DEI” portal and the FAQ; and restrain the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) from enforcing the DCL. Plaintiffs allege that the DCL radically resets the Department’s longstanding positions on civil rights laws, which guarantee equality and inclusion and impermissibly infringes on the authority of states and school districts over public education, as well as the First Amendment rights of educators and students. Due to the DCL’s allegedly vague and viewpoint-discriminatory prohibitions, Plaintiffs further contend that “the [DCL’s] fundamental contradiction of Title VI in prohibiting equity and inclusion programs, its violations of due process in failing to set clear standards and in opening educators to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, as well as its chill to First Amendment protected speech and expression could not stand no matter the process followed.” Plaintiffs also allege that the open-ended and subjective nature of the DCL’s prohibitions allow for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the uncertainty in what educators can teach, how they can teach, and what educational programs may or may not operate moving forward has an immediate impact on their ability to do their jobs and as such, causes substantial and irreparable harm.

    Topics:

    Admissions | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Diversity in Employment | Faculty & Staff | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Students

  • Date:

    U.S. Department of Education Releases Frequently Asked Questions on Dear Colleague Letter About Racial Preferencing (Mar. 1, 2025)

    U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) Press Release announcing issuance of its Frequently Asked Questions (Feb. 28, 2025) (“FAQ”) pertaining to the February 14 Dear Colleague Letter. The FAQ reiterates OCR’s broad interpretation of the scope of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), including its view that “school-sponsored or school-endorsed racially segregated aspects of student, academic, and campus life, such as programming, graduation ceremonies, and housing, are legally indefensible.” The FAQ allows that “educational, cultural, or historical observances … or similar events – that celebrate or recognize historical events and contributions and promote awareness” would not violate Title VI but asserts that “extreme practices at a university—such as requiring students to participate in privilege walks, segregating them by race for presentations and discussions with guest speakers, pressuring them to participate in protests or take certain positions on racially charged issues, investigating or sanctioning them for dissenting on racially charged issues through DEI or similar university offices, mandating courses, orientation programs, or trainings that are designed to emphasize and focus on racial stereotypes, and assigning them coursework that requires them to identify by race and then complete tasks differentiated by race—are all forms of school-on-student harassment that could create a hostile environment under Title VI.” It also states that OCR may rely on the three-part McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) Title VII employment discrimination burden shifting test to “assess indirect evidence of individual discrimination” against students. 

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism Announces Visits to 10 College Campuses that Experienced Incidents of Antisemitism (Feb. 28, 2025)

    The U.S. Department of Justice announced its “Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism” established by Executive Order, “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism,” which intends to prioritize “root[ing] out anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on college campuses,” will “be visiting 10 university campuses that have experienced antisemitic incidents since October 2023,” including “Columbia University; George Washington University; Harvard University; Johns Hopkins University; New York University; Northwestern University; the University of California, Los Angeles; the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Minnesota; and the University of Southern California.” 

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination