Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
3/20/2026
United States of America v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (D. Mass. Mar. 20, 2026)
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff, the Department of Justice (DOJ), sued Harvard University claiming Title VI violations based on its failure to address antisemitism on campus. The complaint claims that the university was deliberately indifferent to discrimination that occurred on campus against Jewish and Israeli students and failed to consistently enforce its campus policies in cases where Jewish and Israeli students were the victims of harassment. The complaint further accuses the university of failing to discipline faculty and staff who endorsed student demonstrations by canceling class or dismissing students early to allow them to participate. The DOJ asks the court to: declare that the university has discriminated against Jewish and Israeli students in violation of Title VI; order the university to enforce its policies and impose discipline on students and faculty who violate those policies; declare the university is in material breach of its contracts and assurances of compliance under Title VI; rescind and award the United States restitution of all federal grant payments made during the period of alleged noncompliance; and appoint an independent outside monitor, approved by the government, to ensure compliance with all injunctive and equitable relief ordered by the court.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | Students
Date:
3/17/2026
Education and Workforce Committee Release Report on Antisemitism in Higher Education (Mar. 17, 2026)
The Education and Workforce Committee published a report on antisemitism in higher education, the result of ongoing committee investigations and hearings on the topic which began in late 2023. The report calls on university leaders to do more to combat antisemitism on their campuses including adopting a robust definition of antisemitism, strengthening policies governing campus protests and ensuring consistent enforcement of those policies, and ensuring that university governing boards are engaged and intellectually diverse. The report also recommends that Congress pass the Civil Rights Protection Act, the Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rouge Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act (DETERRENT) and legislation requiring U.S. universities to make their syllabi at their overseas and satellite campuses publicly available.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | Students
Date:
3/3/2026
Doe v. Northwestern University (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2026)
Opinion Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, a group of Jewish students who attend Northwestern University, sued the university for Title VI violations and breach of contract based on the university’s response to on-campus demonstrations related to the Israel-Hamas conflict and alleged acts of antisemitism. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ Title VI claims, finding plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that (1) the university had actual knowledge of the alleged antisemitic incidents or (2) its response to the on-campus encampment was “clearly unreasonable,” given it issued warnings, involved campus police, and negotiated the encampment’s removal in less than a week. In light of the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Title VI claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state contract claims.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | Students
Date:
2/27/2026
Doe v. The Trustees of Columbia University (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 27, 2026) (unpub.)
Opinion and Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss and Vacating University’s Sanctions. Plaintiffs, 22 students who attend Columbia University, challenged the sanctions imposed on them by the university following the April 2024 occupation of Hamilton Hall, alleging that the disciplinary determinations against them were arbitrary and capricious and in violation of New York law. The court denied the university’s motion to dismiss, finding that the university (1) improperly inferred guilt from mere presence at the occupation when it needed evidence of each student’s individual conduct; and (2) improperly relied on information contained in the students’ arrest records, which was placed under seal, and therefore, under New York Law, required to be treated as a legal nullity and could not be used to impose adverse consequences. The court found that because the arrest information was the only evidence placing the students inside Hamilton Hall, and the university was unable to produce any other proof of their individual conduct, the disciplinary findings were unsupported by admissible evidence. Accordingly, the court vacated the disciplinary sanctions and remanded the matter to the university, while clarifying that the university may initiate new disciplinary actions based on permissible evidence.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech | Student Conduct | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | Students
Date:
10/14/2025
Fellowship of Christian Univ. Students at the Univ. of Texas at Dallas, et al., v. Eltife, et al., (W.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2025)
Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, several student organizations at the University of Texas Austin and Dallas campuses, sued the university claiming that its implementation of the Texas “Campus Protection Act” which requires public universities to adopt (1) an overnight expression ban; (2) an end-of-term invited speaker ban; (3) an end-of-term amplified sound ban; and (4) an end-of-term drum ban, violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In granting plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, the court held that plaintiffs had demonstrated they were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claims, finding that the Texas law was “content-based both on its face and by looking to the purpose and justification for the law.” Moreover, the court found the university had failed to demonstrate that its actions were narrowly tailored to meet a compelling governmental interest, writing “[t]he First Amendment does not have a bedtime of 10:00 p.m.” The court also found that because the Texas law likely violated the First Amendment, plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if denied a preliminary injunction. The court enjoined the university from enforcing the speech bans against the plaintiffs, against any expressive activities at the Austin or Dallas campuses, or at any other within the University of Texas System.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | Students
Date:
9/22/2025
Campos v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents (D. Ariz. Sep. 22, 2025)
Opinion and Order Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion for Stay Pending Appeal. Plaintiffs, a group of former students at Arizona State University, brought (1) a federal First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the university’s president, and (2) a state law free speech claim under A.R.S. § 151864 against both the university and its president, after plaintiffs’ arrest and suspension for participation in a pro-Palestinian campus protest. Following the court’s denial of the university’s motion to dismiss the state law claim on sovereign immunity grounds, the university appealed to the Ninth Circuit and requested a blanket stay of the matter pending the outcome. Analyzing the “competing interests” of the parties under Landis, the court granted defendant’s request for a stay of the state law claim, holding the university had demonstrated a clear case of hardship or inequity and further noting that “[i]f [the university] was subject to discovery on claims it should be immune from, it would be denied the benefit of its immunity.” However, the court denied the stay with respect to plaintiffs’ federal claim, reasoning, in part, that it would be unaffected by the outcome of the appeal. In allowing discovery and pretrial motions to proceed on plaintiffs’ federal claim, the court noted several factors that weighed in plaintiffs’ favor, including (1) the potential that plaintiffs’ claims could require significant discovery, which had yet to begin; (2) the risk that evidence may become more elusive with time; and (3) plaintiffs’ allegations that “they have been deprived of their First Amendment freedoms and continue to experience harm to their academic standing and future career prospects because of the ongoing suspension.”
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech | Student Organizations | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | Students
Date:
7/28/2025
Campos v. Arizona Board of Regents (D. Ariz. Jul. 28, 2025)
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, a group of Arizona State University students, brought suit against the Arizona Board of Regents, the University’s President Michael Crow, several University officials, and law enforcement officers, alleging First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and violation of Arizona’s campus free speech statute following plaintiffs’ arrest and suspension for participation in a pro-Palestinian protest on campus. Plaintiffs alleged that the University coordinated with law enforcement to suppress anti-Israel speech and then preemptively suspended student protestors while sparing other students present at the demonstration. In response to the lawsuit, two motions to dismiss were filed: one from the University’s Board of Regents and several other University-affiliated individuals, and the other from the current Maricopa County Sheriff. The court dismissed all claims against the County Sheriff and nearly all individual University officials, citing a lack of specific factual allegations to support a legal claim. However, the court allowed claims to proceed against the University Board of Regents and University President. The court found that plaintiffs plausibly alleged the University’s President retaliated against them based on their political speech, based on the claim that (1) the University President was urged by the Anti-Defamation League to “impose consequences on students protesting Zionism,” and (2) spread misinformation about the protest to justify the University’s actions. The court further found that Arizona had waived sovereign immunity for the state-law claim and declined to apply qualified immunity or issue preclusion due to unresolved factual disputes and outstanding questions in the case
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | Students
Date:
6/13/2025
Qaddumi v. Hartzell (W. D. Tex. Jun. 13, 2025)
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a student at the University of Texas at Austin alleged violation of the First Amendment by way of content and viewpoint discrimination and First Amendment retaliation against defendants, several administrators at the University. Plaintiff was suspended from the University following his involvement in planning a protest about the ongoing violence in Gaza as a member of the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC). Plaintiff maintains that the planned protest activities were peaceful in nature, however defendants counter that the protests held by aligned groups at other higher education institutions were “creating campus encampments” and feared that similar disruption would occur on the University’s campus, and subsequently issued a directive ordering students not to hold the event, or to face discipline under the University rules. Simultaneously, the Governor of Texas issued an Executive Order that instructed the University to ensure that its policies were being enforced, and student groups such as PSC were disciplined as needed for violating the policies. Plaintiff and other students proceeded with the protest despite the directive to cancel it. Plaintiff was then arrested for alleged trespass and suspended for one year after the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The court dismissed plaintiff’s claim for damages against University administrators in their individual capacity based on qualified immunity and his request for declaratory relief as to the cancellation of the April 2024 protest. In allowing plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief on his suspension to proceed, the court reasoned that the University’s application of its policies in the instant case constituted viewpoint discrimination. The court highlighted the following alleged facts that could give rise to the inference of animus or discriminatory motive by the defendants: (1) defendants’ motive for suspension was derived in part by the Governor’s order, which the court previously found likely constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment; (2) plaintiff was suspended “at least in part because of the prior actions of a student group of which he is a not a member but only shares similar views”; and (3) “other students on the scene of the protest, who did not have the same views as [plaintiff], were not similarly disciplined, nor have other similar protests on different topics historically resulted in [the University] forbidding protests and subsequently suspending students.”
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | Students
Date:
3/18/2025
Statement of Interest Supporting Equal Access to Educational Opportunities and Facilities for Jewish UCLA Students (Mar. 18, 2025)
The U.S. Justice Department (the Department) filed a statement of interest in the Central District of California as part of the ongoing litigation of Frankel v. Regents of the University of California (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2024) to advance the appropriate interpretation of federal laws that prohibit colleges and universities from discriminating against students because of their religion or national origin. The statement of interest is part of the nationwide efforts to combat antisemitism from the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Equal Protection | First Amendment & Free Speech | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | Students
Date:
11/1/2024
Students for Justice in Palestine, at the University of Houston v. Gregg Abbott (W.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2024)
Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, student groups from the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Houston, and the University of Texas at Dallas alleged violations of their First Amendment rights and assert claims of viewpoint discrimination and chilled speech, against their respective institutions, boards, and personnel, as well as Texas Governor Greg Abbott, based on implementation of Executive Order GA-44 “relating to addressing acts of antisemitism in institutions of higher education.” The Order required Texas public postsecondary institutions to “establish appropriate punishments” for antisemitism as that term is defined in Texas Code, which relies in part on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s “Working Definition of Antisemitism” (adopted May 26, 2016). Plaintiffs claimed that inclusion of that definition of antisemitism in institutional policy would proscribe their ability to criticize Israel, and that the Order chilled their free speech and violated the First Amendment. In initially permitting the claims to proceed, the court found plaintiffs’ intended future speech would be proscribed by the policy and that under Speech First, Inc. v. Fenves (5th Cir. 2020), “in the pre-enforcement context, [] chilling a plaintiff’s speech is a constitutional harm adequate to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement.” However, the court denied the request for a preliminary injunction as overly overboard, and dismissed the claims against Governor Abbott, the University of Houston and UT Austin and their respective boards as barred by sovereign immunity.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | Students

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.