Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    ACE Comments on Workforce Pell Proposed Rule (Apr. 8, 2026)

    The American Council on Education (ACE) along with 38 higher education associations, sent comments to the Office of Postsecondary Education regarding the Department of Education’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking titled “Accountability in Higher Education and Access Through Demand-Driven Workforce Pell: Pell Grant Exclusion Relating to Other Grant Aid; and Workforce Pell Grants.” The associations suggest, among other things, that (1) students enrolled in a program should not count in the job placement rate, (2) basic elements of an appeals process should be standardized, and (3) the Department should abide by the Master Calendar, which would result in an implementation deadline of July 1, 2027 at the earliest.

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Higher Education Act (HEA) | Students

  • Date:

    ACE Response to RFI on Classifying Student Athletes as Employees (Apr. 8, 2026)

    The American Council on Education (ACE) along with five other higher education associations, sent a letter to Chairman Cassidy of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in response to his request for information on “Stabilizing College Sports and Preserving Opportunities for Athletes.” The associations write that “treating student-athletes as employees under the NLRA or the FLSA has deeply troubling implications for the continued viability of intercollegiate athletics.” The comments also outline concerns regarding the potential need for increased employees, increased costs, and compliance with Department of Labor regulations.

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Student Athlete Issues | Students

  • Date:

    Court Grants TRO for Plaintiff Interveners in Lawsuit Challenging the ACTS Survey (Apr. 7, 2026)

    After a coalition of states sued the Department of Education alleging its Admissions Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) survey was unlawful, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, and others moved to intervene in the case and sought a temporary restraining order blocking the survey. After granting the parties’ motion to intervene for the limited purpose of considering their request for a TRO, the court granted the TRO. For institutions covered by the order, which includes AAU member institutions and private-nonprofit colleges in several states, the TRO (1) extends the deadline to complete the ACTS survey through April 14, 2026, and (2) enjoins the Department from enforcing the survey completion deadlines of March 18, 2026, March 31, 2026, or April 8, 2026 against those institutions.

    Topics:

    Admissions | Students

  • Date:

    Urgent National Action to Save College Sports – The White House (Apr. 3, 2026)

    Executive Order: “Urgent National Action to Save College Sports.” This Order directs federal agencies, beginning August 1, 2026, to evaluate whether universities that violate key athletics rules, particularly around pay-for-play (including NIL arrangements), transfer policies, and eligibility limits, should remain eligible for federal funding, while also encouraging national governing bodies to adopt standardized rules such as a five-year participation window, structured transfer limits, and protections against improper financial inducements and agent misconduct. The order emphasizes preserving the financial viability of non-revenue programs, especially women’s and Olympic sports, amid what it characterizes as a “chaotic” system driven by court rulings and inconsistent state laws, and calls on Congress to enact comprehensive legislation to provide long-term stability. The Order further directs the Administrator of General Services and the Department of Education to increase data collection across college athletics to ensure compliance. The White House also issued a Fact Sheet with the Order.

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Athletics Operations | Gender Equity in Athletics | Student Athlete Issues | Students

  • Date:

    Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Education (D. Mass. Apr. 3, 2026)

    Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, a coalition of states, sued the Department of Education alleging that the Department’s new Admissions Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) survey is contrary to law, exceeds the Department’s statutory authority, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court held that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their APA arbitrary and capricious claim, finding that the Department “changed its historical position, and rejected multiple comments expressing concern, solely in order to achieve an arbitrary and unexplained deadline.” The court noted the Department’s failure to consider alternatives such as phased implementation or pilot testing was further evidence of the arbitrary and capricious nature of the agency’s action. The court also found that plaintiffs had demonstrated they would face irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction was not granted, given the significant administrative burdens and potential enforcement risks. The preliminary injunction blocks the Department from enforcing the reporting requirements against public institutions within the 17 plaintiff states.

    Topics:

    Admissions | Students

  • 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 Misconduct

  • Date:

    Newman v. Howard Univ. School of Law, et al. (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2026)

    Opinion Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a white former law student at Howard University proceeding pro se, sued the university, law school dean, and several administrators for breach of contract and defamation, alleging administrators lowered his grades, took away his scholarship, and subjected him to a “smear campaign,” after he sent provocative and racially charged messages to classmates and was expelled. The court granted summary judgment for the university on plaintiff’s contract claims, finding no evidence that the university lowered his grades or class ranking and concluding that the loss of plaintiff’s scholarship resulted from his failure to meet its conditions. The court also granted summary judgment for the university on one of plaintiff’s defamation claims, concluding the dean’s statement that plaintiff harassed her and other students was a fair characterization in light of complaints from several students. However, the court allowed plaintiff’s remaining defamation claims to proceed, finding a reasonable jury could infer the dean’s statements, including one accusing plaintiff of saying “African Americans suffer from hive mind,” were made with malice given her prior frustration with plaintiff and her decision to initiate charges on behalf of unnamed students.

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Students

  • Date:

    Massachusetts, et al. v. Department of Education, et al. (D. Mass. Mar. 24, 2026)

    Temporary Restraining Order Extending Deadline. Plaintiffs, a coalition of states, sued the Department of Education challenging the new Admissions Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) survey, alleging that the survey’s reporting requirements are contrary to law, exceed the Department’s statutory authority, and violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). On March 13, plaintiffs’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was granted, extending the deadline for all institutions impacted by the Department’s actions from March 18 to March 25. Following the March 24 hearing on plaintiffs’ motion, the judge has now extended the TRO to April 6, however, the extension is only applicable to public institutions in the 17 plaintiff states. All other impacted institutions are still bound by the March 25 deadline. The judge plans to issue any preliminary injunction decision by ⁠April ​3.

    Topics:

    Admissions | Students

  • Date:

    Molosso v. Bd. of Supervisors Univ. of La. Sys. (5th Cir. Mar. 23, 2026)

    Opinion Affirming Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former nursing student at the University of Louisiana at Monroe, sued the university alleging, inter alia, discrimination based on disability and failure to accommodate after she failed several courses and was dismissed from the program. The district court granted summary judgment for the university and the plaintiff appealed on two grounds: (1) that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on her failure to accommodate claim; and (2) the court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s Rule 56(b) motion for more discovery time. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding that because plaintiff’s need for an accommodation due to her ADHD “was not open and obvious” and because she failed to request an accommodation, there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the university knew of her need for an accommodation. The court further held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) motion, finding she failed to diligently pursue discovery during her three-month continuance.

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Students

  • Date:

    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

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