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:
Court Grants Joint Parties’ Stipulation in Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ. v. Dep’t of Educ. (Mar. 31, 2026)
The California State University System (CSU) sued the Department of Education challenging its January 2026 determination that San Jose State University (SJSU) violated Title IX when it allowed a transgender athlete to compete on the women’s volleyball team from 2022-2024. After reviewing the joint stipulation from the parties, the court entered an order setting out how the case will be managed going forward. The order stipulates that within two business days of any determination by the Department that it intends to withhold funds or take other action against SJSU or CSU, the parties will provide the court with a proposed briefing and hearing schedule. CSU agrees to maintain existing policies and not treat the stipulation as a concession on the merits. The order protects CSU from immediate enforcement consequences, particularly the risk to federal funding, while allowing the court to later resolve CSU’s claims that the Department’s actions were unlawful, retroactive, and constitutionally impermissible.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Equity in Athletics | Sex Discrimination | Sexual Misconduct | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ. v. Dep’t of Educ. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2026)
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff, the California State University System, sued the Department of Education challenging its January 2026 determination that San Jose State University (SJSU) violated Title IX when it allowed a transgender athlete to compete on the women’s volleyball team from 2022-24. The complaint alleges that SJSU could not lawfully exclude a transgender athlete under Ninth Circuit precedent, NCAA rules, and federal guidance, and maintains that the Department’s findings improperly attempt to retroactively impose Title IX obligations based on a later policy shift. The complaint further alleges that the proposed resolution agreement violates both the Spending Clause and the First Amendment by conditioning federal funding on the university sending personal apologies to female athletes and agreeing to amend its policies. Plaintiff has asked the court to vacate the Department’s findings and enjoin it from (1) terminating, freezing, blocking, or refusing federal funding to SJSU; and (2) enforcing the proposed resolution agreement.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Equity in Athletics | Sex Discrimination | Sexual Misconduct | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Title IX Special Investigations Team Probes the California Community College Athletic Association for ‘Transgender Participation Policy’ (Jan. 15, 2026)
The Department of Education and Department of Justice’s Title IX Special Investigation Team announced that it has initiated an investigation into the California Community College Athletic Association (3C2A) based on allegations that 3C2A’s “Transgender Participation Policy” violates Title IX. The Policy states that “a trans[gender] female…or non-binary student-athlete who has completed at least one calendar year of testosterone suppression treatment . . . may compete on a women’s team.” A complaint submitted to the Office for Civil Rights alleged that 3C2A ignored complaints from female students about “the harm of male students participating in female sports” and further alleged that the Policy resulted in discrimination against at least three female athletes when it “allowed a male athlete to participate on the woman’s volleyball team” and access locker facilities during the 2024 and 2025 seasons.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Gender Equity in Athletics | Sexual Misconduct | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Department of Education Initiates Review of UC Berkeley for Potential Clery Act Violations (Nov. 25, 2025)
The Department of Education announced that its Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) has initiated a “focused review” into the University of California, Berkeley looking at the campus’ compliance with Clery Act reporting and safety requirements. The review is prompted in part by a protest that took place at a November 10th Turning Point USA event on campus, although the Department’s press release says FSA will also assess ongoing compliance issues. FSA has requested the university submit, within 30 days, information including: (1) copies of its 2025 Annual Security Report and evidence of distribution; (2) an “audit trail” showing all crime incidents for 2022-2024; (3) an “audit trail” showing all arrests and referrals of students and employees for campus disciplinary action; (4) a copy of the university’s police department activity log; (5) a copy of the daily crime log for 2022-2025; (6) a list of all timely warnings and emergency notifications for 2022-2025; (7) a copy of all policies and procedures related to timely warnings, emergency notifications, and evacuation policies that were in place at the time of the protests; (8) a copy of the post-event response assessment; (9) copies of any memoranda of understanding with other state and local law enforcement agencies; (10) a list of all contracted services engaged for event safety and security; and (11) copies of all campus, patrol and sector maps used by the UC Berkeley Police Department, contract security, and/or the university’s real estate office.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Clery Act | Sexual MisconductDate:
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:
HHS Rescission of 1998 interpretation of Personal and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Jul. 10, 2025)
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it has formally rescinded the 1998 interpretation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), reasoning that it improperly extended certain federal public benefits to illegal aliens. The newly revised list of programs now classified as “federal public benefits” under PRWORA include: Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics, Community Mental Health Services Block Grant, Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), Head Start, Health Center Program, Health Workforce Programs not otherwise previously covered (including grants, loans, scholarships, payments, and loan repayments), Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Treatment, Prevention, and Recovery Support Services Programs administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness Grant Program, Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services Block Grant, Title IV-E Educational and Training Voucher Program, Title IV-E Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program, Title IV-E Prevention Services Program, and Title X Family Planning Program. The policy change is intended to align with Executive Order (E.O.) 14218 “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders” and in alignment with the Department of Education’s new interpretive rule rescinding the previous 1997 Dear Colleague Letter on PRWORA.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Distressed & Suicidal Students | Employee Benefits | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Health Care & Insurance | Immigration | International Students | Sexual Misconduct | StudentsDate:
Hushen v. Gonzales (Colo. Jun. 9, 2025)
Opinion Reversing and Remanding. Petitioners, several high school students and their mothers who were previously sued by respondent, a fellow classmate, for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress following a Title IX investigation into allegations of sexual harassment against respondent, bring the current “special motion to dismiss” under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute. Petitioners allege that the statements they made in the school’s investigations were absolutely privileged from use in a tort action because they were made during a quasi-judicial proceeding. The question before the court was “whether the doctrine of absolute privilege applies to statements made in connection with a public school district’s formal Title IX investigation.” The Court explained that a proceeding is quasi-judicial if it involves: “(1) a determination of the interests, rights, or duties of specific individuals and (2) the application of current law or policy to past and present facts.” The court further explained that procedural and “due process concerns are independent of the assessment of whether a proceeding is quasi-judicial.” In finding that the Title IX investigation against respondent was a quasi-judicial proceeding, and petitioners’ statements during the investigation were subject to absolute privilege, the court held that petitioners’ statements could not be used as the basis for any tort claims against them. The Court’s holding notably contrasts with the finding in Kahn v. Yale University, 347 Conn. 1, 295 A.3d 855 (2023), where the Connecticut Supreme Court found that a University’s Title IX process lacked the procedural rigor to qualify as quasi-judicial—thus, the defendants’ statements made during the Title IX investigation process were not absolutely privileged.
Topics:
Sexual Misconduct | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Clery Center 2024 Annual Report (May 6, 2025)
The Clery Center published its Annual Report detailing the results of the Clery Act State of the Field Survey; the first national benchmarking survey aimed at understanding Clery Act implementation in postsecondary institutions. Based on data from more than 500 participants, the Survey found that institutions need dedicated Clery Act budgets, personnel, and training to improve compliance. The results further highlight the need for institutions to prioritize collaboration, invest in necessary training, and ensure that compliance efforts are supported at all levels of administration. Finally, the Report celebrates the passage of the Stop Campus Hazing Act and highlights the Clery Center’s programmatic accomplishments in 2024.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Clery Act | Sexual Misconduct
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.