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:
Council for Opportunity in Education v. Department of Education, et al., (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 2026)
Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, the Council for Opportunity in Education, sued the Department of Education for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and sought a preliminary injunction after the Department cancelled more than 100 DEI-related grants and denied new grant applications. The court found that the Department likely violated federal law in denying new grant applications and discontinuing existing grants because its decisions were impermissibly vague, inadequately explained, and likely arbitrary and capricious. The court also found that the Department failed to follow required statutory procedures prior to terminating funding and wrongfully applied its anti-DEI policies retroactively and without notice-and-comment. After determining that plaintiff’s member institutions faced imminent and irreparable harm, the court granted the injunction, enjoining the grant denials and discontinuations as to the identified COE member institutions, and further ordered the Department to reconsider grants that were either denied or discontinued last year.
Topics:
Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | ResearchDate:
Department of Education Program Participation Agreement Signature Requirements (Jan. 16, 2026)
The Department of Education Office of Federal Student Aid announced that in response to a challenge to the legality of 34 C.F.R. § 668.14, which requires an owner-entity of an institution of higher education to sign a Program Participation Agreement (PPA), the Secretary of Education has agreed to no longer enforce the owner-entity signature requirement. The change in enforcement follows the Department’s settlement in Hannibal-LaGrange University v. Department of Education (E.D. Mo. 2025). Moving forward, enforcement of the provision will be on a case-by-case basis, and the Department also indicated that it intends to revise the regulation consistent with the results of the settlement agreement.
Topics:
Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | StudentsDate:
ACE Comments on the Department of Education’s Proposed Revisions to the Accreditation Handbook (Jan. 26, 2026)
The Department of Education Office of Federal Student Aid announced that in response to a challenge to the legality of 34 C.F.R. § 668.14, which requires an owner-entity of an institution of higher education to sign a Program Participation Agreement (PPA), the Secretary of Education has agreed to no longer enforce the owner-entity signature requirement. The change in enforcement follows the Department’s settlement in Hannibal-LaGrange University v. Department of Education (E.D. Mo. 2025). Moving forward, enforcement of the provision will be on a case-by-case basis, and the Department also indicated that it intends to revise the regulation consistent with the results of the settlement agreement.
Topics:
Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | StudentsDate:
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:
ACE Comments to NSF on Workforce Development (Jan. 15, 2026)
The American Council on Education (ACE) sent comments to the National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (NSF TIP) responding to a Request for Information on workforce development in emerging technologies. The comments respond to the six questions posed by NSF in the RIF and state that higher education institutions are best positioned to deliver large scale upskilling and reskilling, noting in particular the opportunities present at community colleges. The comments also detail how institutions of higher education are already aligned with NSF TIP Workforce Roadmap Goals given higher education’s long-standing investments in (1) cross-sector networks; (2) industry-informed workforce development; and (3) translating research to practice. The comments encourage NSF TIP to prioritize continuous investment in upskilling and reskilling and argue that all technologies identified in the CHIPS and Science Act will face significant workforce needs over the next five to ten years, highlighting the need for long-term partnership with institutions of higher education in national workforce development.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | ResearchDate:
Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Initiates 18 Title IX investigations (Jan. 14, 2026)
The Department of Education announced its Office for Civil Rights has initiated 18 Title IX investigations into educational institutions, three of which are institutions of higher education. The Department wrote that the complaints that led to the investigations are based on allegations that the institutions “maintain polices or practices that discriminate on the basis of sex by permitting students to participate in sports based on their ‘gender identity,’ not biological sex.”
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Equity in Athletics | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
State of New York, et al., v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al. (D.R.I. Jan. 13, 2026)
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, a coalition of twelve states, sued the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and several subagencies alleging that HHS’s adoption of new grant funding conditions, requiring compliance with the Administration’s interpretation of Title IX as set forth in Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In particular, the funding conditions require recipients to certify they have adopted the executive order’s definition of sex and gender, recognizing only “male” and “female” based on “biology at conception.” Plaintiffs allege that HHS acted arbitrarily and capriciously by reversing longstanding interpretations of Title IX without reasoned explanation and by failing to consider reliance interests, scientific evidence, and the existence of transgender individuals. Plaintiffs further allege that HHS unlawfully adopted a legislative rule without notice and comment, exceeded its statutory authority by attempting to graft an executive order onto Title IX, and violated the Spending Clause and separation of powers by imposing vague, retroactive, and coercive funding conditions not authorized by Congress. Plaintiffs contend that the challenged conditions expose them to immediate and irreparable harm by threatening the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal health, education, and research funding by subjecting them to heightened risk of enforcement under the False Claims Act. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that the funding conditions are unlawful and unconstitutional, vacatur of the conditions across all HHS grant documents, and a permanent injunction barring defendants from implementing or enforcing the conditions.
Topics:
Campus Ethics Programs | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Ethics | False Claims Act (FCA) | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | ResearchDate:
Corzo v. Brown Univ. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 12, 2026)
Opinion and Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs, a putative class of alumni from 17 selective universities, sued the universities for violating section 1 of the Sherman Act, alleging that the schools colluded through the “568 Presidents Group” to standardize financial-aid calculations in ways that reduced competition and raised prices for students receiving aid. The court held that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude there was an antitrust violation, finding (1) the universities “agreed on the Consensus Approach to avoid bidding wars and then adhered to it”; (2) the universities held “high enough market shares to infer market power”; and (3) plaintiffs had “suffered an injury when they paid too much.” The court rejected the universities’ section 568 antitrust exemption defense, reasoning that the defense did not apply because some of the universities in the Presidents Group were not admitting students on a “need blind” basis. While several universities maintained that they were still need blind, the court rejected this argument as unpersuasive and contrary to the statutory text, finding that plaintiffs had demonstrated their processes favored wealthier applicants.
Topics:
Antitrust | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Students | Taxes & Finances
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.