FILTERS



Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments


  • Date:

    Am. Ass’n of Univ. Professors, et al., v. Trump, et al. (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025)

    Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and other organizations representing the University of California system employees, faculty, and students, challenged the cancellation of federal grants, asserting violations of the First Amendment, unconstitutional conditions doctrine, Tenth Amendment Spending Clause, Separation of Powers doctrine, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court granted plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, holding that (1) plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their First Amendment, unconstitutional conditions, Tenth Amendment, and APA claims; (2) plaintiffs had shown that irreparable harm was likely; and (3) the balancing of the equities and the public interest favored granting the preliminary injunction. In reaching this decision, the court found that defendants’ actions in cancelling grants and then attempting to force a settlement from the university were “part of a standard playbook of suspending and terminating funding without complying with the statutory requirements” of Title VI or Title IX. The court also noted that the “undisputed record” demonstrated defendants had engaged in “coercive and retaliatory conduct in violation of the First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment.” The court’s order directed the restoration of all previously canceled grants at UCLA; enjoined the defendants from “withholding freezing, suspending, terminating, conditioning or otherwise restricting use of federal funds” to the university, to coerce it in violation of the First Amendment or Tenth Amendment; and enjoined the defendants from seeking payments of or imposing penalties or fines in connection with any civil rights investigations or violations of Title VI, VII, or IX.

    Topics:

    Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research

  • Date:

    Neurodegenerative Disease Research, Inc. v. Northwestern Univ. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2025)

    Opinion and Order Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, Neurodegenerative Disease Research, Inc., brought claims against Northwestern University for fraudulent concealment and for breach of contract or, alternatively, equitable accounting, after it donated several million dollars to fund a multi-year research project conducted under the direction of a specific professor, and subsequently learned that, due to the professor’s strained relationship with the university, the professor would be leaving the university. The court held plaintiff had pled sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss on its fraudulent concealment claim, finding that a  special relationship existed between the parties that gave rise to a duty to disclose the fact that prior litigation between the professor and the university could impact his availability to oversee the research. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, finding that although the university had failed to provide annual reports about the use of the funds as required by their agreement, the plaintiff had failed to allege that it suffered any damages as a result.  However, the court allowed the plaintiff’s equitable accounting claim to proceed because the plaintiff had adequately alleged facts demonstrating that it did not have “an adequate remedy at law” for the university’s failure to provide the report and because a fiduciary relationship existed between the parties.

    Topics:

    Contracts | Endowments & Gifts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Research | Taxes & Finances

  • Date:

    Department of Education Notice for Applications for New Awards for the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education-Special Projects (FIPSE-SP) (Nov. 12, 2025)

    The Department of Education announced that it has issued a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year 2025 for the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education Special Projects (FIPSE-SP). The Department wrote that the competition will award $160 million across four areas of national need: (1) advancing the understanding and use of artificial intelligence (AI), (2) promoting civil discourse on college and university campuses, (3) promoting accreditation reform, and (4) supporting capacity-building for high-quality short-term programs. This notice redirects funds that were originally intended for seven established student success programs. Applications must be submitted by December 3, 2025.

    Topics:

    Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Research

  • Date:

    Department of Justice Announces Agreement with Cornell University (Nov. 7, 2025)

    The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a settlement agreement with Cornell pausing ongoing civil rights investigations into the university and restoring $250 million in federal research funding. The settlement agreement requires the university to (1) share anonymized undergraduate admissions data categorized by race, GPA, and test scores through 2028; (2) conduct an annual campus climate survey; (3) agree to include the DOJ July 29, 2025 memorandum “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination” as a training resource to faculty and staff; and (4) ensure compliance with various federal laws. Finally, in addition to paying the federal government $30 million, the university has agreed to invest $30 million into research programs that will benefit U.S. farmers through various technologies.

    Topics:

    Admissions | Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Research | Students

  • Date:

    Pesta v. Cleveland State Univ. (6th Cir. Nov. 4, 2025)

    Opinion Affirming Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff-Appellant, a former tenured professor at Cleveland State University, sued the university alleging violation of his First Amendment rights after he was investigated and terminated based on research-misconduct related to a controversial paper he co-authored. The trial court granted the university summary judgment, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that plaintiff was fired because of misconduct associated with his accessing restricted data from the NIH and not because of the content of his Global Ancestry paper. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that university officials were “reasonably alarmed by [plaintiff’s] cavalier handling of sensitive genomic data, misleading representations to the NIH about the nature of his research, failure to observe basic conflict-of-interest reporting, and the impact that his actions had on [the university] as a research institution reliant on the NIH.”

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Constitutional Issues | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Research | Research Misconduct | Students

  • 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 | Research

  • Date:

    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 | Students

  • Date:

    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 | Research

  • Date:

    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 | Research

  • Date:

    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 | Research