Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Levy v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. & A&M Coll. (La. App. Nov. 7, 2025)

    Opinion Vacating Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a tenured professor at Louisiana State University School of Law, sued the university seeking reinstatement to his teaching duties and an injunction blocking the university from infringing on his free speech or due process rights, after he was placed on paid administrative leave following vulgar and inappropriate classroom statements regarding the Governor of Louisiana and President of the United States. After the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the university appealed arguing that plaintiff’s claims were premature. Finding that plaintiff’s removal from the classroom was an “interim decision” that did not “disturb [his] tenure rights, employment, or pay,” the court concluded there was “no deprivation to be enjoined.” Accordingly, the court vacated the preliminary injunction and dismissed plaintiff’s claims without prejudice.

    Topics:

    Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Employee Discipline & Due Process | Faculty & Staff | Tenure

  • Date:

    Dukes v. Cent. Conn. State Univ. (Conn. Super. Nov. 7, 2025)

    Opinion Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, the former Director of Student Conduct at Central Connecticut State University, sued the university alleging he was wrongfully discharged following his arrest for domestic violence and three felony charges. Plaintiff claimed that his termination was based on concerns he raised with the university president regarding the university’s handling of Title IX cases from over a decade ago, which he expressed just five days before he was placed on leave, and asserted that his speech was protected from employer discipline. The court found that plaintiff’s leave of absence and subsequent termination were not related to the speech he expressed during his meeting with the president, but rather, based on his pending criminal charges. The court also found that plaintiff’s speech was not protected speech under the Connecticut State Constitution and further, that plaintiff’s speech was not a matter of public concern as plaintiff relied “entirely on his conclusory perception of mismanagement” and thus no genuine issue of material fact was present. 

    Topics:

    Employee Discipline & Due Process | Faculty & Staff

  • Date:

    Department of Education Updates on Negotiated Rulemaking Session to Implement OBBBA Loan Provisions (Nov. 6, 2025)

    The Department of Education announced that the negotiators of the Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) committee reached consensus on a definition of a professional degree. The committee agreed that the programs eligible for the higher loan cap would include medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, optometry, law, veterinary medicine, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, chiropractic, theology, and clinical psychology. The committee also reached unanimous consensus on other proposed changes to federal loans and repayment plans. More details can be found in this summary provided by the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators.

    Topics:

    Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Students

  • Date:

    McGowan v. Univ. of Mich. (E.D. Mich. Nov. 4, 2025)

    Opinion and Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former cook at the University of Michigan dining hall, sued the university claiming discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), retaliation under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and breach of contract and wrongful termination under state law, after she was terminated following her failure to submit forms required to request unpaid medical leave prior to the submission deadline. The court dismissed plaintiff’s claims, holding that the university was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity because the dining hall was “a department of the university and not a separate third-party entity” and therefore, was entitled to the same immunity as the university itself.

    Topics:

    Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Pesta v. Cleveland State Univ. (6th Cir. Nov. 4, 2025)

    Opinion Affirming Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff-Appellant, a former tenured professor at Cleveland State University, sued the university alleging violation of his First Amendment rights after he was investigated and terminated based on research-misconduct related to a controversial paper he co-authored. The trial court granted the university summary judgment, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that plaintiff was fired because of misconduct associated with his accessing restricted data from the NIH and not because of the content of his Global Ancestry paper. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that university officials were “reasonably alarmed by [plaintiff’s] cavalier handling of sensitive genomic data, misleading representations to the NIH about the nature of his research, failure to observe basic conflict-of-interest reporting, and the impact that his actions had on [the university] as a research institution reliant on the NIH.”

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Constitutional Issues | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Research | Research Misconduct | Students

  • Date:

    Boyages v. The University of Vermont and State Agricultural College (D. Vt. Nov. 4, 2025)

    Opinion and Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former administrative assistant in the athletics department at the University of Vermont, sued the university for copyright infringement based on a front-facing “V-Cat” logo that she designed while employed by the university and participating as a member of an internal branding working group. The court granted summary judgment for the university finding that the university held the copyright to the design under the “work for hire” and alternatively, “derivative work” exceptions. In analyzing the “work for hire” exception, the court determined plaintiff’s efforts in creating the design (1) were the kind of work that plaintiff was employed to perform; (2) occurred substantially within the authorized time and space limits of her job; and (3) were actuated, in part, by a purpose to serve the employer. The court reasoned that just because “no one specifically told [plaintiff] to come up with the Design herself does not take her work outside the ‘ultimate objective’ of [the university].” Further, while plaintiff used her personal Adobe Photoshop account outside of work hours to create the design, she did so based off of conversations from branding working group meetings held during work hours and requested feedback from colleagues on her design. The court also held that plaintiff’s design was a derivative work of the university’s own copyrighted V-Cat logo, noting the similarities in the features of the cat design, “such as ears, eyes, and whiskers” and the “expression of those features” and concluding the “aesthetic appeal” of the two images was the same.

    Topics:

    Copyright & Fair Use | Intellectual Property

  • 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:

    Univ. at Buffalo Young Americans for Freedom v. Univ. at Buffalo Student Ass’n, (2nd Cir. Nov. 3, 2025) (unpub)

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech

  • Date:

    National Council of Nonprofits, et al., v. Linda McMahon, et al., (D. Mass. Nov. 3, 2025)

    Complaint for Declaratory Relief. Plaintiffs, a group of cities, counties, nonprofit organizations and associations, sued the Department of Education and Secretary McMahon alleging the Department’s October 31, 2025 final rule on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program is unlawful and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Plaintiffs contend that they face “direct, immediate, and seriously detrimental injury” because the final rule “forces them to engage in burdensome compliance activities, threatens to cause them economic harm through loss of talent and anticipated increased costs to their hiring and employee compensation, and . . . chills their protected speech.” Plaintiffs also argue that the final rule is arbitrary and capricious because it is based on “unsupported assertions [and] proposes to address a problem that it cannot substantiate.” Further, plaintiffs allege that the final rule violates the free speech rights of nonprofit plaintiffs and associational plaintiffs as it is overbroad and “not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.” Finally, plaintiffs allege that the final rule violates due process and is void for vagueness because it does not provide “a sufficient basis to understand what conduct is actually prohibited.” Plaintiffs request that the court declare the final rule unlawful and unconstitutional, vacate it, and permanently enjoin defendants from implementing or enforcing it.

    Topics:

    Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Students

  • Date:

    ACE Comments on VA’s Proposed Distance Learning Rule (Oct. 31, 2025)

    The American Council on Education (ACE) along with 24 higher education associations, sent comments to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regarding the proposed rule to amend VA definitions relating to distance learning and independent study. The comments express concern about both the VA’s proposed definitions and the consequences of updating definitions through current regulations. The associations note that the proposed definitions do not fully align with existing Department of Education definitions and further do not differentiate between modality and curriculum. The associations further expressed concern regarding expanding GI Bill access to unaccredited, online non-college degree programs as this would represent a significant policy change and merits further discussion. The comments conclude by recommending that the VA withdraw its proposed rule and work with Congress and the Higher Education community to modernize the definitions while maintaining guardrails for program quality and integrity.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Veterans Discrimination

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