Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Kershnar v. Kolison, Jr., et al. (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2026)

    Opinion and Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a philosophy professor at the State University of New York at Fredonia (SUNY), sued the university’s president and provost, alleging retaliation, viewpoint discrimination, and prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment, after he was barred from teaching and banned from campus following controversial remarks he made about age-of-consent laws during a podcast appearance. The court found that, despite the offensive nature of his speech, plaintiff plausibly alleged that his statements addressed a matter of public concern and therefore were entitled to First Amendment protection. The court further found that plaintiff had plausibly alleged that the university’s order prohibiting plaintiff from contacting members of the campus community functioned as a prior restraint on his speech. Finally, the court also found that although plaintiff continued to receive his salary during the campus ban, he had sufficiently alleged retaliation, concluding that the close timing between the podcast going viral, the university president’s public condemnation of the remarks, and campus ban plausibly suggested a retaliatory motive.  

    Topics:

    Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ. v. Dep’t of Educ. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2026)

    Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff, the California State University System, sued the Department of Education challenging its January 2026 determination that San Jose State University (SJSU) violated Title IX when it allowed a transgender athlete to compete on the women’s volleyball team from 2022-24. The complaint alleges that SJSU could not lawfully exclude a transgender athlete under Ninth Circuit precedent, NCAA rules, and federal guidance, and maintains that the Department’s findings improperly attempt to retroactively impose Title IX obligations based on a later policy shift. The complaint further alleges that the proposed resolution agreement violates both the Spending Clause and the First Amendment by conditioning federal funding on the university sending personal apologies to female athletes and agreeing to amend its policies. Plaintiff has asked the court to vacate the Department’s findings and enjoin it from (1) terminating, freezing, blocking, or refusing federal funding to SJSU; and (2) enforcing the proposed resolution agreement. 

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Equity in Athletics | Sex Discrimination | Sexual Misconduct | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Sheets v. Greenville Univ. (S.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2026)

    Opinion Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, the former head softball coach at Greenville University, brought claims against the university alleging sex-discrimination under Title VII and retaliation under Title IX after she objected to the university’s failure to provide her with an assistant coach, voiced opposition to a sports complex that did not provide comparable facilities for each sex, and was terminated and replaced with a less-qualified male coach. The court allowed plaintiff’s Title VII claim to proceed, finding she had adequately pled that she had been terminated on the basis of her sex. The court also allowed plaintiff’s Title IX retaliation claim based on her opposition to the sports complex to proceed, finding that plaintiff’s objections were raised “on behalf of female student athletes” and were known to the university decisionmakers responsible for her termination. However, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s Title IX retaliation claim based on her objections to the assistant coaching policy. The court found that because her claim rested on objections to employment discrimination that she herself was experiencing, and not on discrimination experienced by female student athletes, her Title IX claim was preempted by her Title VII claim.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination

  • Date:

    AIR Announces ACTS Reporting Deadline Update from the Department of Education (Mar. 6, 2026) 

    The Association for Institutional Research (AIR) announced that the Department of Education has offered institutions of higher education a conditional extension for submitting data for the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) survey. Institutions may request an extension until April 8, 2026 conditioned on the institution providing by the original March 18 deadline (1) completion of all ACTS screening questions for all seven ACTS years, and (2) at least three years of ACTS data files. In response to press inquiries, the Department has stated that it will only grant “limited extensions to the reporting deadline where institutions have shown a good faith effort to comply and extraordinary circumstances warranting extension.”  

    Topics:

    Admissions | Students

  • Date:

    Department of Education Issues Proposed Rulemaking to Implement New Workforce Pell Grant Program (Mar. 6, 2026) 

    The Department of Education announced that it has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to implement the new Workforce Pell Grant program included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). Among its provisions, the NPRM would (1) allow students to receive Pell Grants for eligible workforce programs that consist of 150-599 hours of instruction and take 8-14 weeks to complete; (2) set additional eligibility requirements for the approval of a workforce program, including approval by a Governor; and (3) establish certain accountability benchmarks such as job placement rates and a value-added earnings measure. Comments are due by April 8, 2026. 

    Topics:

    Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Students

  • Date:

    Doe v. Northwestern University (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2026)

    Opinion Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, a group of Jewish students who attend Northwestern University, sued the university for Title VI violations and breach of contract based on the university’s response to on-campus demonstrations related to the Israel-Hamas conflict and alleged acts of antisemitism. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ Title VI claims, finding plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that (1) the university had actual knowledge of the alleged antisemitic incidents or (2) its response to the on-campus encampment was “clearly unreasonable,” given it issued warnings, involved campus police, and negotiated the encampment’s removal in less than a week. In light of the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Title VI claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state contract claims. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | Students

  • Date:

    ACE Comments on the Department of Education’s NPRM “Reimagining and Improving Student Education” (Mar. 2, 2026) 

    The American Council on Education (ACE) and 40 other higher education associations submitted comments to the Department of Education’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) stemming from changes made in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). The associations’ comments outline the changes the proposed regulations would make in areas such as federal student loan limits for graduate and professional students and the impact these changes would have on students and campuses. In addition to the associations’ letter, a bipartisan group of more than 150 lawmakers sent comments to the Department critiquing the proposed changes. 

    Topics:

    Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Students

  • Date:

    Brake v. Liberty University (W.D. Va. Mar. 2, 2026)

    Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former Title IX investigator at Liberty University, sued the university under Title IX; the Uniformed Services Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA); the Virginia Whistleblower Protection Act (VWPA); and the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA), after he returned from a three–year military leave, reported alleged Title IX misconduct, and was terminated for “compliance issues.” The court denied the university’s motion for summary judgment on most of the plaintiff’s Title IX claims, finding a reasonable jury could conclude his internal complaints and participation in an internal investigation constituted protected activity, even if a part of his job duties, and were a motivating factor in his termination. However, the court granted summary judgment on the portion of plaintiff’s Title IX claims that were based on other protected activity that was unknown to the university decisionmaker. The court also denied summary judgment on plaintiff’s USERRA discrimination claim, finding a jury could conclude he was denied a benefit when his cell phone stipend was not immediately restored upon his return. But it granted summary judgment on his USERRA retaliation claim, finding that plaintiff failed to show the required causation. Finally, the court denied summary judgment on plaintiff’s state law claims under VWPA and VHRA.  

    Topics:

    Faculty & Staff | Retaliation | Veterans & Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)

  • Date:

    Doe v. The Trustees of Columbia University (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 27, 2026) (unpub.)

    Opinion and Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss and Vacating University’s Sanctions. Plaintiffs, 22 students who attend Columbia University, challenged the sanctions imposed on them by the university following the April 2024 occupation of Hamilton Hall, alleging that the disciplinary determinations against them were arbitrary and capricious and in violation of New York law. The court denied the university’s motion to dismiss, finding that the university (1) improperly inferred guilt from mere presence at  the occupation when it needed evidence of each student’s individual conduct; and (2) improperly relied on information contained in the students’ arrest records, which was placed under seal, and therefore, under New York Law, required to be treated as a legal nullity and could not be used to impose adverse consequences. The court found that because the arrest information was the only evidence placing the students inside Hamilton Hall, and the university was unable to produce any other proof of their individual conduct, the disciplinary findings were unsupported by admissible evidence. Accordingly, the court vacated the disciplinary sanctions and remanded the matter to the university, while clarifying that the university may initiate new disciplinary actions based on permissible evidence.  

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Hougham v. Trs. of Ithaca Coll. (N.D. N.Y. Feb. 27, 2026)

    Opinion Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a tenured professor at Ithaca College, brought Title IX employment discrimination claims against the college alleging university administrators discriminated against him based on sexual orientation, subjected him to harassment, and retaliated after he reported the conduct by declining to renew his associate provost appointment. The court allowed plaintiff’s Title IX discrimination claim to proceed, rejecting the college’s argument that plaintiff’s claims were precluded by Title VII. Relying on the Second Circuit precedent, the court reasoned that when Title IX allows a private right of action for a university’s intentional gender-based discrimination against a faculty member, that Title IX claim should not be dismissed on the ground that plaintiff complained of such discrimination with respect to his employment. Finally, the court dismissed plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim, finding that because the elements of the claim were identical to his hostile environment claim, the claim was duplicative.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Retaliation

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