FILTERS



Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments


  • Date:

    Department of Justice Memorandum for Federal Funding Recipients Regarding Unlawful Discrimination (Jul. 30, 2025)

    The Department of Justice (“DOJ” or the Department) released new guidance clarifying that entities receiving federal funding must comply with federal antidiscrimination laws, regardless of whether their policies are labeled as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The guidance emphasized that using protected characteristics such as race, sex, religion, or national origin to provide advantages or impose disadvantages are generally prohibited. The guidance provides a detailed, non-exhaustive list of policies and practices the DOJ considers unlawful. These include programs that grant preferential treatment based on protected characteristics, such as scholarships or internships reserved for a specific racial group based on “geographic targeting,” hiring or promotion practices that prioritize “underrepresented” candidates, and segregated facilities or resources. The guidance also targets facially neutral policies that function as proxies for protected characteristics; such, requiring job applicants to demonstrate “cultural competence, “lived experience,” or submit “diversity statements” in ways that advantage individuals based on race or sex. Similarly, recruitment efforts that target specific geographic areas or institutions for their demographic makeup are flagged as potentially unlawful. While the guidance generally prohibited sex-based separation, it includes a notable exception for sex-separated athletic competitions and intimate spaces, warning that allowing males, “including those self-identifying as women”, to access female-only restrooms, locker rooms, or teams may violate Title IX and create a hostile environment under Title VII. The guidance also criticized the use of protected characteristics in selection processes, such as “diverse slate” hiring mandates, contract awards based on race or sex, and program participation quotas tied to demographic categories. The Department also prohibits trainings that stereotype, exclude, or penalize participants based on protected traits; for instance, programs that frame “white privilege” or “toxic masculinity” as inherent characteristics are unlawful. The DOJ concludes by offering a set of recommended best practices aimed at minimizing legal risk: using neutral, merit-based selection criteria, avoiding demographic quotas, documenting legitimate rationales behind institutional decision making, analyzing facially neutral criteria for discriminatory effects, and using nondiscrimination clauses in contracts with third parties. The guidance further affirmed that individuals who refuse to participate in or object to potentially discriminatory programs are protected from retaliation. The DOJ urged all federal funding recipients to review and revise any discriminatory policies to avoid legal liability and loss of funding. 

    Topics:

    Admissions | Athletics & Sports | Compliance & Risk Management | Compliance Programs, Policies & Procedures | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Diversity in Employment | Faculty & Staff | Gender Equity in Athletics | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Sex Discrimination | Students

  • Date:

    Brown University Settlement Agreement to Restore Research Funding (Jul. 30, 2025)

    Brown University entered into a resolution agreement with the federal government following civil rights investigations into the University’s alleged failure to address anti-Semitism, the University’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, and termination of research grants. The agreement requires the adoption of the definitions of “male” and “female” from Executive Order 14168 “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism” for women’s sports, programming, facilities, and housing. Additionally, the University will no longer perform gender reassignment surgeries on minors or prescribe them puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. The University agreed to pay $50 million over ten years to state workforce development organizations that comply with anti-discrimination laws to support regional economic growth and career opportunities. Finally, the agreement establishes a three-year monitoring period to ensure continued compliance with the terms of the agreement.

    Topics:

    Contracts | External Counsel | General Counsel | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Research

  • Date:

    ACE Letter Urging NIH to Reinstate Terminated Grants (Jul. 29, 2025)

    The American Council on Education (ACE), alongside a coalition of higher education associations, sent a joint letter to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Bhattacharya urging the reinstatement of all NIH research grants that were unlawfully terminated under now-vacated federal directives. The letter referenced the recent federal court ruling in American Public Health Association v. National Institutes of Health, which found that the NIH improperly halted roughly 900 grants without individualized review, harming scientific progress and researcher careers. Although NIH is currently reinstating some grants per court order, the associations argued in the letter that many similar grants remain terminated without justification.

    Topics:

    Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Research

  • Date:

    U.S. Department of Justice Notice of Findings Regarding the University of California, Los Angeles (Jul. 29, 2025)

    The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Division determined that the University of California, Los Angeles (the University) violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to adequately address antisemitic harassment during and after a protest encampment on campus in spring 2024. The DOJ’s Notice of Violation outlined three key findings. First, the notice claimed that Jewish and Israeli students were subject to severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive harassment, including assaults, verbal abuse, and physical exclusion from campus spaces, on the basis of their race, religion, or national origin. Second, notice claimed that the University had actual notice of this hostile environment, having received at least eleven formal complaints and issued public statements acknowledging Jewish students’ fears and physical exclusion. Third, the notice claimed that the University responded with deliberate indifference, taking no meaningful action to eliminate the hostile environment for nearly a week, despite having both legal and policy authority to dismantle the encampment earlier. The DOJ concluded that the University’s free speech concerns were misplaced because the conduct in question included physical assaults, intimidation, and denial of access, which are not protected by the First Amendment. DOJ officials condemned the inaction and warned that legal action will follow if the University does not enter into a voluntary resolution agreement by August 5, 2025.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Equal Protection | External Counsel | First Amendment & Free Speech | General Counsel | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    Department of Education Title VI Investigation into Duke University Law Journal (Jul. 28, 2025)

    The Department of Education’s (the Department) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) launched an investigation into Duke University (the University) and the Duke Law Journal (the Journal) for allegedly violating Title VI by considering race, color, or national origin in the Journal’s editor selection process. The investigation follows reports that the University’s Law Journal circulated a supplemental grading rubric to affinity groups, awarding extra points to applicants who referenced underrepresented racial or ethnic backgrounds in their personal statements. At the same time, Secretary Linda McMahon and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. issued a joint letter to the University demanding a review and overhaul of any race-based practices in hiring, admissions, scholarships, including at Duke Health. The letter calls for the creation of a “Merit and Civil Rights Committee” empowered by the University’s Board of Trustees to implement and enforce reforms in cooperation with the federal government.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Diversity in Employment | External Investigations | Faculty & Staff | Investigations | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Student Organizations | Students

  • Date:

    Campos v. Arizona Board of Regents (D. Ariz. Jul. 28, 2025)

    Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, a group of Arizona State University students, brought suit against the Arizona Board of Regents, the University’s President Michael Crow, several University officials, and law enforcement officers, alleging First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and violation of Arizona’s campus free speech statute following plaintiffs’ arrest and suspension for participation in a pro-Palestinian protest on campus. Plaintiffs alleged that the University coordinated with law enforcement to suppress anti-Israel speech and then preemptively suspended student protestors while sparing other students present at the demonstration. In response to the lawsuit, two motions to dismiss were filed: one from the University’s Board of Regents and several other University-affiliated individuals, and the other from the current Maricopa County Sheriff. The court dismissed all claims against the County Sheriff and nearly all individual University officials, citing a lack of specific factual allegations to support a legal claim. However, the court allowed claims to proceed against the University Board of Regents and University President. The court found that plaintiffs plausibly alleged the University’s President retaliated against them based on their political speech, based on the claim that (1) the University President was urged by the Anti-Defamation League to “impose consequences on students protesting Zionism,” and (2) spread misinformation about the protest to justify the University’s actions. The court further found that Arizona had waived sovereign immunity for the state-law claim and declined to apply qualified immunity or issue preclusion due to unresolved factual disputes and outstanding questions in the case

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | Students

  • Date:

    Department of Justice Title VII Investigation into George Mason University Over Faculty Resolution in Support of President Gregory Washington (Jul. 25, 2025)

    The Department of Justice (“DOJ” or the Department) expanded an ongoing investigation into George Mason University (the University) by reviewing a Faculty Senate resolution that praised the University’s President Gregory Washington’s efforts to align faculty and staff demographics with the student body. The DOJ expressed concern that the resolution suggests unlawful “race- or sex-motivated hiring decisions” in violation of Title VII. The Department’s letter requested copies of “the Faculty Senate resolution, any proposed drafts of that resolution, and all written communications . . . between any Faculty Senate members or between Faculty Senate members and President Washington or any members of his Office’s staff.” The letter stated its intent to submit a more detailed information request next week. This action marks the fifth federal probe into the University within the past few weeks. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Diversity in Employment | External Investigations | Faculty & Staff | Investigations | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    Department of Justice Letter Re: State of Tennessee v. Department of Education (Jul. 25, 2025)

    The Department of Justice (the Department) sent a memorandum to Congress stating that it does not intend to defend the constitutionality of funding mechanisms for Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) being challenged in State of Tennessee v. Department of Education, effectively aligning the government with the plaintiffs’ position in the case. Plaintiffs in the case allege that federal programs offering aid to HSIs, as defined as enrolling at least 25% full-time equivalent Hispanic undergraduates, are unlawful. In the memorandum, the Department wrote that it “has determined that those provisions violate the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause” and further explained that “the government lacks any legitimate interest in differentiating among universities based on whether ‘a specified number of seats in each class’ are occupied by ‘individuals from the preferred ethnic groups.”’ 

    Topics:

    Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    Saving College Sports – The White House (Jul. 24, 2025)

    Executive Order: “Saving College Sports.” This Order aims to stabilize college athletics by addressing the growing concerns around athlete compensation and the impact of recent legal rulings. The Order focuses on preserving and expanding opportunities for non-revenue and women’s sports, while prohibiting third-party pay-for-play arrangements. The Order mandates that athletic departments with revenues over $125 million increase scholarship opportunities and roster spots for non-revenue sports starting in the 2025-2026 season. Departments with revenues over $50 million must maintain or increase these opportunities, while those with smaller budgets should avoid disproportionately reducing scholarships for non-revenue sports. Additionally, the Order explicitly bans third-party, pay-for-play payments to athletes. However, athletes may still receive compensation for legitimate market value services, like brand endorsements. The Order clarifies that any revenue-sharing arrangements between universities and athletes should not undermine opportunities for less profitable programs. Finally, the Order requires the Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to clarify the status of student-athletes, along with directing the Attorney General and Federal Trade Commission to generate a report on how to protect college athletics from potential legal threats (such as antitrust lawsuits), and further requires the Secretary of Education to issue an implementation plan using mechanisms such as Title IX enforcement, federal funding leverage, and interstate commerce laws. The White House also published a Fact Sheet on the Order.

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Athletics Compliance & NCAA Rules | Athletics Operations | Student Athlete Issues | Students

  • Date:

    State Department Investigation into Harvard’s Eligibility to Sponsor International Students and Researchers (Jul. 23, 2025)

    The State Department (the Department) launched an investigation into Harvard University’s compliance with the Exchange Visitor Program, seeking to verify that the University is fully adhering to visa regulations and aligning its programs with U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives. Although the Department did not specify any alleged violations, the investigation aims to ensure that the University’s sponsorship activities do not conflict with national interests. The University was given one week to provide records related to visa sponsorships. 

    Topics:

    Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | External Investigations | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Students | Investigations