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:
Campos v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents (D. Ariz. Sep. 22, 2025)
Opinion and Order Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion for Stay Pending Appeal. Plaintiffs, a group of former students at Arizona State University, brought (1) a federal First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the university’s president, and (2) a state law free speech claim under A.R.S. § 151864 against both the university and its president, after plaintiffs’ arrest and suspension for participation in a pro-Palestinian campus protest. Following the court’s denial of the university’s motion to dismiss the state law claim on sovereign immunity grounds, the university appealed to the Ninth Circuit and requested a blanket stay of the matter pending the outcome. Analyzing the “competing interests” of the parties under Landis, the court granted defendant’s request for a stay of the state law claim, holding the university had demonstrated a clear case of hardship or inequity and further noting that “[i]f [the university] was subject to discovery on claims it should be immune from, it would be denied the benefit of its immunity.” However, the court denied the stay with respect to plaintiffs’ federal claim, reasoning, in part, that it would be unaffected by the outcome of the appeal. In allowing discovery and pretrial motions to proceed on plaintiffs’ federal claim, the court noted several factors that weighed in plaintiffs’ favor, including (1) the potential that plaintiffs’ claims could require significant discovery, which had yet to begin; (2) the risk that evidence may become more elusive with time; and (3) plaintiffs’ allegations that “they have been deprived of their First Amendment freedoms and continue to experience harm to their academic standing and future career prospects because of the ongoing suspension.”Topics:
Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech | Student Organizations | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | StudentsDate:
Spectrum WT v. Wendler (N.D. Tex. Sep. 23, 2025)
Opinion Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, an LGBT+ student organization and two former student group leaders at West Texas A&M University, were granted a preliminary injunction after the university president canceled a drag show that plaintiffs organized and which they maintained was a violation of their First Amendment rights. On defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court granted defendants’ motion with respect to the two individual plaintiffs, finding they no longer had Article III standing for any alleged injury, since one had left the university and the other had graduated. However, the court rejected defendants’ motion to dismiss the organizational plaintiff, holding (1) an unincorporated association holds the capacity to sue or be sued in Texas; and (2) the student organization has standing because it was able to demonstrate “ongoing harm” based on the substantial likelihood of the university president canceling future drag shows that plaintiffs wished to organize.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Student Organizations | StudentsDate:
Department of Education Issues Denial of Access Letter to Harvard University for Alleged Failure to Provide Admissions Data (Sep. 19, 2025)
The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (the Department) issued a Denial of Access letter to Harvard University, alleging the university has failed to provide documents and information requested as part of the Department’s compliance review into whether Harvard is illegally considering race in its undergraduate admissions process. The Department argued that by refusing to respond adequately to their interrogatories and document requests, Harvard is violating its legal obligation Under Title VI, 34 C.F.R. § 100.6(b) and (c). The Department has given Harvard twenty calendar days to provide additional information.
Topics:
Admissions | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | External Investigations | Investigations | StudentsDate:
Presidential Proclamation Providing Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers (Sep. 19, 2025)
The President issued a Proclamation, “Restrictions on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers,” requiring a $100,000 payment to accompany any application for entry to the United States to perform services in a specialty occupation under an H-1B nonimmigrant visa. The proclamation states this restriction will be in place for 12 months from its effective date. The White House cited concerns that the current H-1B program has been “deliberately exploited” to replace American Workers with lower-paid and lower-skilled labor, artificially suppressing wages. On September 21, 2025 the White House published a FAQ clarifying that the new $100,000 fee will apply only to new H-1B applications and that it does not prevent current H-1B visa holders from traveling in and out of the United States.
Topics:
Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & StaffDate:
Department of Education Withdrawal of Notices Inviting Applications (Sep. 18, 2025)
The Department of Education (the Department) announced its withdrawal of the June 3, 2025 and July 14, 2025 Notice Inviting Applications (NIAs) for new awards for the Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Part A (ANNH Part A), Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions Part A (AANAPISI Part A), Strengthening Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions Part A (NASNTI Part A) and Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions programs (DHSI). This withdrawal follows the Justice Department’s announcement that it will no longer defend from legal challenge programs providing funding for HSIs, which they allege are unconstitutional.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | ResearchDate:
2024-2025 Award Year Deadline Dates for Reports and Other Records Associated With FAFSA, FSEOG Program, FWS Program, the Federal Pell Grant Program, the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, and the TEACH Grant Program (Sep. 18, 2025)
The Department of Education (the Department) issued a notice announcing deadline dates for the receipt of documents and other information from applicants and institutions participating in certain Federal student aid programs. Specifically, the Department is extending the deadline date for the receipt of corrections, notices of change of address or institution, or requests for a duplicate FAFSA Submission Summary to September 29, 2025. Additionally, the Department is extending the deadline for an institution to receive Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR) or FAFSA Submission Summary to September 30, 2025, or the student’s last date of enrollment for the 2024-25 award year, whichever is earlier. Finally, the Department removed all references to identify verification reporting requirements for V4/V5 Verification Tracking Groups.
Topics:
Contracts | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | StudentsDate:
High-Level Guidance to Submit Comments on the DHS Proposed Rule to End Duration of Status (Sep. 18, 2025)
The American Council on Education (ACE) in collaboration with other higher education partners, developed guidance to help institutions interested in submitting comments on the Department of Homeland Security’s proposed duration of status rule. The guidance goes over six key points for comments, encouraging drafters to work with the appropriate stakeholders at their respective institutions. Comments are due by September 29, 2025.
Topics:
Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Activities | International Students | Study Abroad ProgramsDate:
Martinson v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (D. Nev. Sep. 18, 2025)
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a student athlete at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, (UNLV) sued the NCAA arguing the NCAA’s “Five-Year Rule,” which capped plaintiff’s playing eligibility to a maximum of two or three seasons due to his prior playing time at a junior college, was a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In granting plaintiff’s preliminary injunction, the court held that (1) plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits, (2) plaintiff would suffer immediate and irreparable harm in being disqualified for the 2025-2026 season, noting that in addition to losing his spot on the football team, he would also lose “time-sensitive, unparalleled, and incalculable career opportunities” and (3) enjoining anticompetitive eligibility rules “serves a compelling public interest of increased participation and competition in the competitive football services labor market.” The court also granted plaintiff’s request to enjoin the NCAA’s Rule of Restitution, in order to prevent the NCAA from punishing the plaintiff, either directly or indirectly by punishing any institution for which he plays.
Topics:
Antitrust | Athletics & Sports | Athletics Compliance & NCAA Rules | Student Athlete Issues | Students | Taxes & FinancesDate:
Barot v. St. John’s Univ. (E.D. N.Y. Sep. 18, 2025)
Opinion Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former graduate assistant at St. John’s University, brought claims against the university for breach of contract, arguing he was required to work longer hours than was specified in his graduate assistant contract, and discrimination based on national origin, arguing the university required more work of graduate assistants on F1 visas, than other citizen graduate assistants. The court granted summary judgment for the university on plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim finding (1) plaintiff had waived his breach of contract claim by “repeatedly renew[ing]” the contract over multiple years and continuing to reap its benefits and (2) while a reasonable jury could conclude plaintiff “expressed unhappiness” with his working conditions, he provided no evidence that he believed the university was in breach of the contract. The court also rejected plaintiff’s discrimination claims, reasoning “[w]hile it may be that [the university] was in a position to exploit foreign graduate assistants . . . because of their status, the claim that it did exploit foreign [graduate assistants] or otherwise treated citizen [graduate assistants] preferentially is unsupported by any evidence beyond [plaintiff’s] own conclusory statements.”
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Benefits | Faculty & Staff | Race and National Origin 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.