Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
8/22/2025
Department of Education Finds George Mason University in Violation of Title VI (Aug. 22, 2025)
The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (the Department) announced its finding that George Mason University violated Title VI by illegally using race and other immutable characteristics in university practices and policies, including hiring and promotion. Specifically, the Department received allegations that the University President created an atmosphere of surveillance pertaining to the University’s hiring decisions in relation to DEI objectives and policies that support racial preferencing. The Department issued a proposed Resolution Agreement, and the University has been given ten days to voluntarily resolve the violations. The proposed Resolution Agreement requires (i) the University President personally issue a statement to the campus community that the University will conduct all recruitment, hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions in compliance with Title VI, and disseminate information to the campus community explaining how to submit a discrimination complaint; (ii) include a personal apology from the University President for promoting unlawful discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion, and tenure processes; (iii) post the statement prominently on the University website and remove from its website any contrary statements; (iv) review its policies and revise any documents currently used in the University recruitment, hiring, and promotion process to ensure compliance with Title VI, and remove any provisions that require or encourage the use of race to favor or disfavor any candidate; (v) conduct an annual training of all individuals involved in and responsible for recruitment, hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions to impart that the University will not give preferences based on race, color, or national origin in those processes; and (vi) maintain all records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Agreement, making them available to the government upon request, and assign an individual to coordinate the University’s implementation of the Agreement with OCR.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | External Investigations | Investigations | Race and National Origin Discrimination
Date:
8/21/2025
National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association (Aug. 21, 2025)
Application for Stay Granted in Part and Denied in Part. Petitioners filed for an emergency application for stay following an order from the District Court of Massachusetts that restored several hundred million dollars in research grant funding and determined that the termination directives issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were unlawful. The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision granted the stay application as to the portion of the district court’s judgment that vacated the government’s termination of grants but otherwise denied the application. The Court reasoned that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the restoration of funds, finding that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims is better suited to adjudicate “contract disputes” under the Tucker Act. However, the Court did not stay the district court’s order that vacated the NIH directives are illegal, as they are being properly litigated as APA challenges. As such, NIH cannot terminate any additional research studies based on the directives in the guidance.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Research
Date:
8/20/2025
Department of Education Title VI Investigation of Haverford College (Aug. 20, 2025)
The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (the Department) announced an investigation of Haverford College for alleged Title VI violations. The Department initiated the investigation based on reports that the College failed to respond to multiple incidents of discrimination and harassment against Jewish and Israeli students. Specifically, allegations were made that senior leadership at the College told Jewish students that they should be “brave” in the face of anti-Semitic harassment and not expect to be “safe.” The investigation follows the Congressional hearing focused on antisemitism where campus leaders from the College among other institutions were called to testify.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | External Investigations | Investigations | Race and National Origin Discrimination
Date:
8/19/2025
Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter on Updated Requirements for Distribution of Voter Registration Forms and Federal Work Study Allowable Uses of Funds (Aug. 19, 2025)
The Department of Education (the Department) issued a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) detailing updated requirements for distribution of voter registration forms and allowable uses of federal work study (FWS) funds. The DCL states that the Department’s regulations prohibit FWS funds from being used to employ students whose work involves any partisan or nonpartisan political activity. The letter explains that “jobs involving partisan or nonpartisan voter registration, voter assistance at a polling place or through a voter hotline, or serving as a poll worker—whether this takes place on or off campus—involve political activity.” While past guidance from the Department expanded the allowable uses of FWS funds related to voter registration, the Department has now rescinded that guidance and encourages institutions to employ students in jobs that align with real-world work experience related to a student’s course of study. The DCL further states that institutions who distribute voter registration forms are encouraged to consider reminding students of the eligibility requirements to register to vote and cast ballots, and are encouraged to “remain mindful of their existing obligations under the law to avoid aiding and abetting voter fraud, such as actions to aid and abet a noncitizen to vote in a federal election.”
Topics:
Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Students | Tax Implication of Campus Political Activity | Taxes & Finances
Date:
8/18/2025
Department of Education Proposed Public Service Program Rules to Protect American Taxpayers (Aug. 18, 2025)
The Department of Education Secretary proposed to amend the regulation on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program to exclude employers that engage in activities that have a “substantial illegal purpose.” The proposed rule would clarify the definition of a qualifying employer, define activities that have a substantial illegal purpose, address the impact on borrower eligibility, and ensure employers are given notice and the opportunity to respond to an adverse finding. The proposed change seeks to add definitions for: aiding or abetting, chemical castration or mutilation, child or children, foreign terrorist organizations, illegal discrimination, other Federal Immigration laws, substantial illegal purpose, surgical castration or mutilation, terrorism, trafficking, violating State law, and violence for the purpose of obstructing or influencing Federal Government policy. Additionally, the proposed change seeks to clarify that a borrower may not request reconsideration of a final determination by the Secretary that the employer lost status as a qualifying employer. Finally, the proposed change seeks to establish that an employer that loses PSLF eligibility could regain qualifying employer status after (10) ten years from the date the Secretary determines the employer engaged in activities that have a substantial illegal purpose, or (2) after the Secretary approves a corrective action plan. Comments are due by September 17, 2025.
Topics:
Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Students
Date:
8/18/2025
Spectrum WT v. Wendler (5th Cir. Aug. 18, 2025)
Opinion Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part, and Remanding. Plaintiffs, an LGBT+ student organization and individual members at West Texas A&M University organized a drag show to be hosted on campus, but the show was canceled by the University President. The University President “believed that drag shows discriminated against women” and sent a campus wide email announcing the cancellation and made several remarks criticizing the event. Plaintiffs subsequently sought a preliminary injunction so they could proceed with the show, alleging that their free speech rights were violated. The district court denied the injunction, determining that the venue where the show was set to take place was a limited public forum and found that “it was not clearly established that all drag shows are inherently expressive and therefore implicate the First Amendment, and President Wendler’s cancellation of the drag show was not objectively unreasonable given the show’s ‘potential lewdness.’” The district court further determined that “conduct that does not communicate a specific message must amount to a ‘work [] of fine art’ to gain First Amendment protection.” On appeal, the Fifth Circuit disagreed with the district court’s “fine art” standard, and found that the drag show was communicating a specific message of support for the LGBT+ community. The court further held that “theatrical performances plainly involve expressive conduct within the protection of the First Amendment, and because we find the plaintiffs’ drag show is protected expression, discrimination among such shows must pass strict scrutiny.” The court determined the plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction and remanded for entry of a preliminary injunction.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Student Organizations | Students
Date:
8/18/2025
Jackson Fed’n of Teachers v. Eitch (S.D. Miss. Aug. 18, 2025)
Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, several individuals and organizations impacted by Mississippi House Bill 1193 (HB 1193), challenged the constitutionality of the law. The state law prohibits public schools and universities from teaching, promoting, or requiring participation in diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. HB 1193 bans educational engagement with “divisive concepts,” though it does not clearly define what concepts are prohibited. Defendants maintained that the law is not a violation of the First Amendment because it “seeks to regulate only government speech, and the speech of public employees (such as educators) in their official capacity.” The court previously granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the implementation of the law on July 22, 2025. The court granted a preliminary injunction, finding that plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated the potential for irreparable harm. The court noted the “dearth of evidence” from defendants on the issue of irreparable harm and agreed with plaintiffs that HB 1193 is “unconstitutionally vague, fails to treat speech in a viewpoint-neutral manner, and carries [] serious risks of terrible consequences with respect to the chilling of expression and academic freedom.”
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | First Amendment & Free Speech
Date:
8/15/2025
Department of Education Comment Request on Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) (Aug. 15, 2025)
The Department of Education (the Department), in accordance with the August 7th, 2025 Presidential Memorandum entitled “Ensuring Transparency in Higher Education Admissions,” is seeking to add the “Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement” (ACTS) survey component to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). ACTS is intended for four-year institutions who utilize selective college admissions and will collect data by race-sex pair on: (1) the count of institutions’ applied, admitted, and enrolled cohorts, both overall and further disaggregated by admission test score quintiles, GPA quintiles, ranges of family incomes, Pell Grant eligibility, and parental education; (2) the average high school graduate grade point average and admission test score quintiles for institutions’ applied, admitted, and enrolled cohorts; and (3) the count of students admitted via early action, early decision, or regular admissions. The Department seeks to capture data from the 2025-26 school year as well as from the five prior academic years in order to establish a baseline of admissions practices prior to SFFA v. Harvard. Finally, the Department is seeking feedback on aspects of the proposed data collection, with particular interest regarding whether there are other objective characteristics that the Department could use to identify institutions that have a low-risk or high-risk of noncompliance with Title VI, as well as whether open-enrollment institutions are at-risk of noncompliance with respect to scholarship awarding practices that provide preferential treatment based upon race, and the anticipated amount of time it will take for institutions to compile and submit the anticipated data elements in ACTS. Comments are due by October 14, 2025.
Topics:
Admissions | Students
Date:
8/15/2025
Department of Education 2026-27 FAFSA Form and Pell Grant Eligibility Updates (Aug. 15, 2025)
The Department of Education Office of Federal Student Aid (the Department) announced several changes to the 2026-2027 FAFSA form as required by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), with an implementation date of October 1, 2025. The Department announced an updated Student Aid Index (SAI) asset calculation, which now excludes (i) the net worth of a family owned business with 100 or fewer full-time employees; (ii) the net worth of a farm on which the family resides; and (iii) the net worth of a commercial fishing business and related expenses owned and controlled by a family from net worth of business and farms. Additionally, Pell Grant eligibility criteria have changed, with the foreign earned income exclusion amount reported on the FAFSA form now being added to adjusted gross income (AGI). Finally, an applicant with a SAI equal to or greater than twice the maximum Pell Grant award amount for the award year is now ineligible for a Pell Grant, noting that for the 2026-27 award year, the threshold is $14,790.
Topics:
Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Students
Date:
8/14/2025
American Federation of Teachers v. Department of Education (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2025)
Memorandum Opinion Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), AFT Maryland Chapter, the American Sociological Association (ASA), and the Eugene, Oregon School District 4J brought suit against the federal government in February 2025 alleging that the Department of Education’s (the Department) February 14 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) principles and the associated certification requirement are procedurally and substantively improper under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), First Amendment, and Fifth Amendment. Upon seeking leave to amend their complaint, plaintiffs now allege that the DCL and the certification requirement encompass limitations that are “unclear and highly suggestive”, forcing plaintiffs to “choose between chilling their constitutionally protected speech and association or risk losing federal funds and being subject to prosecution.” The court found that the government did not follow notice and comment procedures in issuing the DCL and did not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The court reasoned that because both the DCL and the certification requirement “fail[ed] to account for facts, law, baseline conditions, or reliance interests” they acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in violation of the APA. The Department maintains that the DCL was a reminder for schools that discrimination is illegal, however, the court disagreed, finding instead that the guidance “initiated a sea change in how the Department of Education regulates educational practices and classroom conduct, causing millions of educators to reasonably fear that their lawful, and even beneficial, speech might cause them or their schools to be punished.” Regarding the certification requirement, the court agreed with plaintiffs that it violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process protections against unreasonably vague laws because the requirement “attach[ed] serious consequences to compliance with standardless terms.” Finally, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion in part related to their claim that the certification requirement is facially overbroad, finding that it does not unambiguously punish protected speech, because it has limiting factors, though the court noted that the factors were not clear. As such, the court held that the DCL and the certification requirement are both unlawful and vacated, pursuant to the APA.
Topics:
Admissions | Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Diversity in Employment | Due Process | Faculty & Staff | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | First Amendment & Free Speech | Race and National Origin Discrimination | 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.