Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    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:

    Christensen v. Carter (S.D. Oh. Jan. 14, 2026)

    Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a student at Ohio State University, sued the president of the university and several senior administrators alleging violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, after the university disenrolled him based on controversial social media videos he posted on his personal TikTok account. The court held that plaintiff demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on his First Amendment retaliation claim, reasoning that while plaintiff’s speech was controversial, it did not “explicitly encourage violence or lawlessness and [was] unlikely to be an implicit endorsement of such action.” Further, the court determined that the facts “[did] not support the conclusion that [d]efendants’ forecast of substantial disruption was reasonable” given the lack of evidence that plaintiff’s speech disrupted any classwork and the fact that the semester was over and plaintiff was not on campus, let alone in the state of Ohio. The court also held that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of his Fourteenth Amendment claim because he did not receive notice and the university failed to show that emergency circumstances justified its failure to hold a hearing prior to disenrolling him. Finally, the court determined that the disenrollment notation on plaintiff’s transcript constituted ongoing irreparable harm and ordered the university to expunge the notation.

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Due Process | First Amendment & Free Speech | Social Media | Student Speech & Campus Unrest

  • Date:

    Peace v. Carter (S.D. Oh. Dec. 30, 2025)

    Opinion and Order Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at Ohio State University, sued the president of the university and several university police officers asserting claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution under Ohio law and the Fourth Amendment, First Amendment retaliatory arrest, and a First Amendment claim challenging the University Space Rules (USR), after he was arrested on campus for criminal trespass while filming during a protest. The court dismissed the majority of plaintiff’s claims including (1) any claims to the extent they sought injunctive or declaratory relief, holding plaintiff failed to allege an ongoing or threat of future injury sufficient for Article III standing; (2) claims against the defendants in their official capacities; (3) state law claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution against defendants, holding the court lacked jurisdiction; and (4) § 1983 claims against the university president in his individual capacity, holding he lacked the requisite personal involvement in the alleged unconstitutional conduct necessary to be held liable. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss with respect to three claims against three university police officers, including plaintiff’s as-applied First Amendment challenge to the USR, noting, in part, that defendants provided no basis to find that plaintiff’s filming of the university police did not enjoy First Amendment protection.

    Topics:

    Campus Police & Relationships with Local Law Enforcement | Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Constitutional Issues | Fourth Amendment & Search and Seizure | Student Speech & Campus Unrest

  • Date:

    Damsky v. Summerlin (N.D. Fla. Nov. 24, 2025)

    Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a law student at the University of Florida with a history of making provocative statements, sued the university for violating his First Amendment rights when it expelled him for posting on social media that “Jews must be abolished by any means necessary.” The court granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and reinstated him at the law school, finding he was likely to prevail on his First Amendment claims and had established irreparable harm in being denied the ability to attend school because of his protected speech. While the university claimed that plaintiff’s speech constituted a “true threat” and thus was unprotected, the court rejected this argument, concluding instead that plaintiff was “stating a view, even if a hateful and offensive one,” and had not conveyed any serious expression of an intent to harm or commit violence. The court also rejected the university’s claim that plaintiff’s speech “created a material and substantial disruption” to the operation of the law school, reasoning plaintiff’s post “bear[ed] no connection with the school at all” as the post occurred outside the university and did not mention the university, administrators, other students, or professors.

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech | Social Media | Student Speech & Campus Unrest

  • Date:

    Elagha v. Northwestern Univ. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 3, 2025)

    Opinion Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, brought Title VI harassment and discrimination claims against the university and three law school deans, following doxing from fellow students based on her participation in pro-Palestinian protests and the recission of a job offer. The court dismissed the law school deans from the suit, analogizing to Title IX caselaw which limits Title IX claims to the university as the grant recipient. On plaintiff’s Title VI harassment claim, the court held that while plaintiff had plausibly alleged a hostile environment which deprived her of the benefit of attending class, she had not shown that the university had been deliberately indifferent in its response. While acknowledging the standard was a “stringent” one, the court found plaintiff had failed to clear this bar, finding the university’s response was both “quick and reasonable,” where it excused her class absences, deferred her exams, and sent letters to her future employer and to the State Bar at her request. Finally, the court dismissed plaintiff’s intentional discrimination claim finding she had failed to provide “even a single example of a similarly situated student outside her protected class” that received the response she sought from the university.

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    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

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