Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    ACE Comments on the Department of Education’s NPRM “Reimagining and Improving Student Education” (Mar. 2, 2026) 

    The American Council on Education (ACE) and 40 other higher education associations submitted comments to the Department of Education’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) stemming from changes made in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). The associations’ comments outline the changes the proposed regulations would make in areas such as federal student loan limits for graduate and professional students and the impact these changes would have on students and campuses. In addition to the associations’ letter, a bipartisan group of more than 150 lawmakers sent comments to the Department critiquing the proposed changes. 

    Topics:

    Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Students

  • 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:

    Missouri, et al.  v. Trump, et al. (E.D. Mo. Feb. 27, 2026) 

    Memorandum and Order Dismissing Case as Moot. Plaintiffs, the State of Missouri and several other states, sued the Secretary of Education and several federal officials alleging that the Biden administration exceeded its statutory authority in 2024 by implementing the Savings on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, which would have allowed for lower payments and forgiveness after 10 years of repayment, as opposed to the 20 or 25 years required under other income contingent repayment (ICR) plans. The district court granted a preliminary injunction with respect to part of the rule and, in February 2025, the Eighth Circuit affirmed and directed the district court to broaden the injunction to block the entire rule. Since the change in administration, the federal government has ceased defending the SAVE plan and Congress subsequently enacted legislation ending it. Because there is no longer a live case or controversy, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice as moot.  

    Topics:

    Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Students

  • Date:

    Akoju v. University of New Hampshire (D. N.H. Feb. 26, 2026)

    Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff, a former graduate student at the University of New Hampshire proceeding pro se, sued the university alleging violations of Title VII and the Fourteenth Amendment after the school terminated her enrollment, ended her SEVIS status, and evicted her from her dorm following her failure to pay more than $14,000 in outstanding charges on her student account. The court denied plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO), finding that plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits of her claims because she received adequate notice of both the registration deadline and the consequences of failing to pay her balance. The court also found that the university’s actions were based on legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons that were consistent with institutional policies and not a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. Although the court acknowledged that plaintiff could suffer significant harm without injunctive relief, including the loss of her F-1 visa status, it found that this harm did not outweigh the deficiencies in her claims.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Students | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation | Student Housing | Students

  • Date:

    International Student Recruiting Firm Enters Settlement Agreement with Department of Justice on False Claims Act Allegations (Feb. 24, 2026) 

    The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it has entered into a settlement agreement with the international student recruiting firm Study Across the Pond LLC (SATP) requiring the firm to pay $1.3 million to resolve allegations that SATP violated the False Claims Act when it knowingly caused foreign universities in the United Kingdom to submit false claims to the Department of Education (ED) through arrangements that violated the federal ban on incentive compensation. Specifically, the DOJ alleged that SATP demanded a share of the tuition paid to the universities for any students the company recruited and then created sham records to hide the tuition-sharing arrangements from ED.  

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | False Claims Act (FCA) | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Higher Education Act (HEA) | Immigration | International Students | Research | Students

  • Date:

    Blythe v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (D. Nev. Feb. 20, 2026)

    Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a Division I baseball recruit for the University of Nevada, Reno, challenged the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) Five-Year Rule and sought a preliminary injunction barring enforcement after his hardship waiver was denied and he was declared ineligible based on his prior seasons playing baseball at Division II and NAIA institutions. The court held that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of his Sherman Act claim, finding that the rule was commercial in nature and produced substantial anticompetitive effects, as well as finding the NCAA’s procompetitive rationales for the rule were insufficient. The court reasoned that the Five-Year Rule “forecloses the opportunity for qualified student-athletes from non-NCAA schools from entering a labor market for Division I baseball . . . simply because of their non-NCAA status.” While the court concluded that plaintiff faced immediate and irreparable harm “due to the time-sensitive loss of season play, compensation and related opportunity,” the NCAA “[would] not.” Accordingly, the court granted the preliminary injunction and enjoined enforcement of the Five-Year Rule against the plaintiff.  

    Topics:

    Antitrust | Athletics & Sports | Athletics Compliance & NCAA Rules | Student Athlete Issues | Students | Taxes & Finances

  • Date:

    OCR Enters into Agreements with 31 Colleges and Universities to End Partnerships with the PhD Project (Feb. 19, 2026)

    The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that it has entered into 31 resolution agreements with institutions of higher education requiring them to cease their partnerships with the PhD project. In addition to ending collaboration with the PhD project, the institutions also agreed to conduct a review of their partnerships with external organizations to identify any that violate Title VI by restricting participation based on race. OCR indicated it is still negotiating with 14 schools.

    Topics:

    Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Faculty & Staff | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Immigration | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Students

  • Date:

    Court Grants Joint Motion by Parties to Dismiss NEA Lawsuit challenging February 14 Dear Colleague Letter  (Feb. 18, 2026)

    A federal district court judge in New Hampshire has formally dismissed a year-long lawsuit brought by the NEA, ACLU, and others challenging the Trump Administration’s February 14 2025 Dear Colleague Letter (“DCL”) after the parties submitted a joint motion to drop the case. The lawsuit challenged the DCL, as well as a related certification requirement for schools and Frequently Asked Questions document, alleging that the guidance violated the First and Fifth Amendments and was in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The joint motion to dismiss was filed on February 3, shortly after the DCL was vacated and set aside by a district judge in Maryland in American Federation of Teachers, et al. v. United States Department of Education. The joint motion requires the Department to agree that “[t]he challenged Agency Actions will not be relied on in any way by Defendants including by way of seeking to enforce its substance through [the Department of Education] or [the Department of Justice] civil rights enforcement procedures.”

    Topics:

    Admissions | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Diversity in Employment | Faculty & Staff | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Students

  • Date:

    Young Americans for Freedom, et al. v. Department of Education (8th Cir. Feb. 17, 2026)  

    Plaintiffs’ Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeal. Plaintiffs, the Young Americans for Freedom, sought an injunction prohibiting the Department of Education from utilizing race eligibility criteria to award grants for the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program. The district court denied the motion, finding that plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to include the relevant higher education institutions, which control applicant selection, not the Department. Plaintiffs appealed the denial of their request for an injunction to the Eighth Circuit but before the court could render a decision, the parties agreed to drop the lawsuit. In requesting the court to dismiss the case, the motion highlights (1) the Department’s determination that the program’s race eligibility criteria is unconstitutional and (2) it’s commitment to rescinding the race criteria in an upcoming rulemaking.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Equal Protection | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Students

  • Date:

    United States of America v. President and Fellows of Harvard (D. Mass. Feb. 13, 2026)

    Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), filed a lawsuit against Harvard University alleging that the university failed to comply with federal information requests related to a Title VI compliance review of the university’s admissions practices. DOJ contends that while the university has provided aggregated admissions data, it has failed to provide individual level applicant data. DOJ requested applicant data on grade point average, standardized test scores, essays and extracurricular activities—disaggregated by race and ethnicity – with an initial deadline of April 25, 2025. DOJ alleges that the information is necessary to determine whether the university is “continuing to discriminate in its admissions process” and further alleges that the university’s refusal violates Title VI regulations and breaches the university’s contractual obligations as a recipient of federal funding. DOJ seeks a court order requiring the university to produce the requested records.

    Topics:

    Admissions | 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