Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    ACE Comments to ICE on the Proposed Duration of Status Rule (Sep. 29, 2025)

    The American Council on Education (ACE) along with 51 other higher education associations wrote the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) expressing strong opposition to the proposed rule “Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media.” The letter expresses concern that if the proposed rule goes into effect, it will have a devastating impact on institutions, international students, and the entire U.S. economy. Specifically, the letter critiques the proposed four-year limit and extension of status (EOS) as unworkable for most students, and states that the four-year time frame should not apply to graduate students, or J-1 programs. The letter also takes issue with the “unreasonably brief” comment period, arguing the 30-day window is insufficient to provide a meaningful opportunity to comment on this significant regulatory proposal and its impact. 

    Topics:

    Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Activities | International Students | Study Abroad Programs

  • Date:

    CUPA-HR Data on H-1B Status for Faculty and Professionals (Sep. 29, 2025)

    The College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) published a compilation of data on the higher education workforce who hold H-1B visas in light of the recent Presidential Proclamation restricting the H-1B visa program. The data notably shows that nearly 3 out of every 100 faculty members currently have H-1B status and further details the types of positions those individuals hold at their respective institutions.  

    Topics:

    Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff

  • Date:

    Doe v. University of Maryland, College Park, et al., (D. Md. Sep. 26, 2025)

    Opinion Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion. Plaintiff, a male student at the University of Maryland, brought a Title IX reverse discrimination and retaliation claim against the university following a months-long public campaign by a female student “to brand [plaintiff] as a rapist” and remove him from the Club Lacrosse team after a university disciplinary process found plaintiff not responsible for sexually assaulting her. The court denied the university’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Title IX sex discrimination claim, finding there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude (1) the persistent public pronouncements that plaintiff is a “rapist,” a “sexual predator” and “dangerous to girls on campus,” constituted harassment “on the basis of [plaintiff’s] sex”; (2) the removal of plaintiff from the Club Lacrosse team amounted to a deprivation of an education benefit; and (3) that the university was deliberately indifferent when it failed to respond to plaintiff’s second complaint to the university and summarily dismissed it a month later. However, on plaintiff’s Title IX retaliation claim, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the university, finding that plaintiff’s “mere participation as the accused in a Title IX process” was insufficient to constitute Title IX protected activity, and even if it did, there was no evidence that “the hostility [plaintiff] later faced was because of that participation.”

    Topics:

    Student Organizations | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Presidential Memorandum Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence (Sep. 25, 2025)

    The White House issued a Presidential Memorandum, “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” directing the creation of a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities and organizations that
    foment political violence.” The Memorandum orders multiple federal agencies and their components to take specified actions, including:

    • requiring the National Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) to investigate federal crimes relating to acts of recruiting or radicalizing persons for the purpose of political violence, terrorism, or conspiracy against rights, as well as “institutional
      and individual funders, and officers and employees of organizations, that are responsible for, sponsor, or otherwise aid and abet” the principal actors engaging in these acts;
    • directing the Attorney General to issue specific guidance ensuring that domestic terrorism priorities include “politically motivated terrorist acts such as organized doxing campaigns, swatting, rioting, looting, trespass, assault, destruction
      of property, threats of violence, and civil disorder”; and
    • instructing the Commissioner of the IRS “to take action to ensure that no tax-exempt entities are directly or indirectly financing political violence or domestic terrorism.

    The White House also released a Fact Sheet, providing additional information on the Memorandum.  

     

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech

  • Date:

    Department of Homeland Security NPR on Weighted Selection Process for Registrants and Petitioners Seeking to File Cap-Subject H-1B Petitions (Sep. 24, 2025)

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would make significant changes to the current lottery system used to award H-1B visas to employers subject to the annual cap. The NPRM proposes to implement a weighted selection process for H-1B registrations that would favor the allocation of H-1B visas to higher skilled and higher paid workers. If finalized, the new rule is likely to be implemented as part of the FY 2027 H-1B lottery, which begins in March 2026. (Currently, higher education institutions are exempt from the H-1B visa cap and lottery.) Comments on the proposal are due on or before October 24, 2025.  

    Topics:

    Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff

  • Date:

    Hansen, et al., v. Northwestern University et al., (N.D. Ill. Sep. 24, 2025)

    Opinion and Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, a putative class of alumni from forty universities, sued the universities and the College Board under section 1 of the Sherman Act alleging defendants had engaged in concerted action by requiring any applicant to provide noncustodial parent (“NCP”) financial information, which in turn substantially increased plaintiffs’ costs to attend college. In dismissing the plaintiffs’ antitrust claim, the court held that while plaintiffs had plausibly alleged “parallel conduct,” they had failed to plausibly allege the parallel conduct was reflective of an agreement among defendants to fix prices. The court further reasoned that nothing in the complaint suggested defendants had exchanged internal financial aid decision-making processes or guidelines, shared the amount of financial aid they planned to offer a particular student, or agreed on the same formula for calculating financial aid based on the NCP financial information. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice.  

    Topics:

    Antitrust | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Students | Taxes & Finances

  • Date:

    Hook v. Rav, et al., (D.S.D. Sep. 24, 2025)

    Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff, a tenured professor at the University of South Dakota, brought a First Amendment retaliation claim against the President of the Board of Regents and other individual defendants after he received notice of an intent to terminate his contract following his online comments about the death of Charlie Kirk. The court found that because plaintiff was at home, off work, and on his private Facebook page, he “spoke as a citizen and his speech was on a matter of public concern.” Additionally, the court found that “defendants [] failed to put on evidence that [plaintiff’s] speech had an adverse impact on the efficiency of the [university’s] operations.” In granting a temporary restraining order, the court held that plaintiff had a fair chance of prevailing on his claim, because “the change in his employment status would ‘chill a person of ordinary fitness’ from continuing to engage in First Amendment activity.” The court ordered the university to reinstate plaintiff’s position retroactive to the date he received the notice and required plaintiff’s position to remain in effect until the preliminary injunction hearing. 

    Topics:

    Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Constitutional Issues | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Social Media

  • Date:

    Barringer-Brown v. Southside Va. Cmty. Coll. (E.D. Va. Sep. 24, 2025)

    Opinion Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former professor and dean at Southside Virginia Community College proceeding pro se, sued the college for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and defamation under state law following her termination after receiving negative feedback from her supervisor, which she maintained was “bogus and defective.” The court dismissed the college as it was not a proper party under Virginia law, and instructed the plaintiff to proceed instead against the Virginia Community College System. The court also dismissed plaintiff’s discriminatory discharge claim, finding she had failed to provide a “valid comparator” or any evidence to the contrary beyond her own “lengthy self-evaluation, and her defamation claim, finding the college had sovereign immunity. In allowing her retaliation claim to proceed, the court found that plaintiff’s filing of an EEOC charge falls under Title VII protected activity and may be pretext as she was terminated two weeks thereafter.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Murray v. Conn. Coll. (D. Conn. Sep. 23, 2025)

    Opinion Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at Connecticut College, in a putative class action, brought negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment claims against the college seeking damages and injunctive relief after a data-security breach which, according to plaintiff, allowed unauthorized third-party cybercriminals to gain access to his personal identifying information (PII) and personal health information (PHI)  The court rejected the college’s argument that plaintiff lacked Article III standing to sue, finding that plaintiff had sufficiently alleged an injury from potential misuse of his data that was “sufficiently concrete, particularized, actual or imminent.” The court allowed plaintiff’s breach of contract claim to proceed, finding plaintiff made a plausible argument that, because he was required to provide PII and PIH as a condition of enrollment, it was fair to assume the college made an implicit promise to responsibly maintain his data. However, the court dismissed plaintiff’s negligence claim, finding he had failed to offer any analysis of the duty question under Connecticut law.

    Topics:

    Cybersecurity | Data Privacy | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Privacy & Transparency | Technology | Tort Litigation

  • Date:

    Thakur v. Trump (N.D. Cal. Sep. 22, 2025)

    Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, a group of researchers at the University of California, sought a preliminary injunction blocking the Department of Defense, Department of Transportation, and Department of Health and Human Services from the mass termination of multi-year research grants via form letter, following the court’s June decision to grant a preliminary injunction blocking the termination of grants at three other agencies, which the Ninth Circuit upheld. Rejecting the government’s argument that plaintiffs’ claims belonged in the Court of Federal Claims, the court distinguished the Supreme Court’s recent decision in NIH v. APHA, reasoning (1) plaintiffs, as individual researchers, were not parties to the grant agreement, and thus, could not obtain any relief from the Court of Federal Claims and (2) plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims were well established to be beyond the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction. The court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the three agencies’ termination of their grants was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court further found that, despite troubling evidence of viewpoint discrimination across all three agencies, plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim with respect to the actions of the Department of Transportation. The court concluded plaintiffs had satisfied the other prongs necessary for a preliminary injunction on these claims and granted their request for relief.

    Topics:

    Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Research

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