Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
4/29/2025
Education and Workforce Committee Pass the Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan (Apr. 29, 2025)
The Education and Workforce Committee passed the “Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan” with an intent to save over $330 billion by way of reforming postsecondary education through three main initiatives: (1) strengthening accountability for students and taxpayers, (2) streamlining student loan options, and (3) simplifying student loan repayment. Specifically, the bill would require colleges “to have skin in the game” by paying a portion of their students’ unpaid loans based on how much of a return on investment the degree provided. It would set a maximum cap of $50,000 for undergraduate student loans, eliminate the GradPLUS loan for graduate students, and amend the maximum aggregate student loan cap to $100,000 for graduate students and $150,000 for professional students, as well as impose a total cap of $50,000 on Parent PLUS loans, requiring students to borrow the maximum amount they can before their parent takes out a loan on their behalf. Further, the bill repeals the SAVE plan and streamlines other repayment plan options into either a fixed repayment plan or an income-driven repayment plan. In addition, the bill proposes (1) additional funding to reduce funding shortfall for the Pell Grant Program, (2) elimination of the Gainful Employment Rule, (3) establishment of performance-based grants to institutions, (4) allowing student loan rehabilitation twice instead of once, and finally, (5) revises deferment and forbearance terms. In addition to the bill, the Committee has put together a Fact Sheet as well as a section-by-section summary and a preliminary cost estimation sheet. The bill now heads to the Budget Committee before it is considered on the House Floor.
Topics:
Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Contracts | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Higher Education Act (HEA) | Students
Date:
4/29/2025
AAUP Academic Freedom and Tenure: Muhlenberg College Report (Apr. 29, 2025)
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) released a new report on the 2024 dismissal of Dr. Maura Finkelstein titled, “Academic Freedom and Tenure: Muhlenberg College.” The report concludes that the administration, in initially dismissing the professor, acted in violation of AAUP-supported principles and standards of academic freedom and due process. It further asserts that the administration’s actions in dismissing the professor, as well as monitoring her social media posts, “severely impaired the climate for academic freedom at Muhlenberg College.” Finally, the report alleges that the College’s equal opportunity and nondiscrimination policies did not sufficiently protect academic freedom and due process, and cautions that the professor’s experience is may not be unique, nor the last of its kind, and thus, makes several procedural recommendations and emphasizes the critical importance of sound policies and appropriate faculty oversight.
Topics:
Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Faculty & Staff
Date:
4/29/2025
ACE Letter Opposing the Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan (Apr. 29, 2025)
The American Council on Education (ACE) sent a letter (the Letter) to Rep. Tim Walberg, Chairman of the Committee on Education and Workforce expressing opposition to the “Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan” – a proposal to provide a budget reconciliation affecting education programs. The Letter states that the bill proposes policies that would harm students, institutions, and borrowers, specifically noting the reduction in student aid to low-income students and onerous financial penalties on institutions, particularly those least able to meet them. It states opposition to proposals including: (1) limiting Pell eligibility; (2) eliminating subsidized student loans; (3) eliminating Grad PLUS and restricting Parent PLUS loans without adequate increases in loan limits; (4) limiting the availability of federal aid to the median cost of specific programs; (5) eliminating/ reducing forbearances and deferments; and (6) establishing less favorable loan repayment options, all of which the Letter avers will lead to students paying more, borrowing more, and facing costlier repayment terms. The Letter critiques the proposal to create an institutional risk-sharing process, framing it as “significantly problematic.” The Letter states that the proposal would unduly penalize the institutions serving the largest number of students operating in the labor market and concludes that “attempting to design and implement an accountability scheme with such an uneven, incredibly complex, and punitive approach will only result in enormous negative consequences.”
Topics:
Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Contracts | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Higher Education Act (HEA) | Students
Date:
4/29/2025
State of Maryland v. Corporation for National and Community Service, Operating as AmeriCorps (Apr. 29, 2025)
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, the State of Maryland, the State of Delaware, the State of California, the State of Colorado, the State of Arizona, the State of Connecticut, the District of Columbia, the State of Hawai‘i, the State of Illinois, the Office of the Governor in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the State of Maine, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, People of the State of Michigan, the State of Minnesota, the State of Nevada, the State of New Jersey, the State of New Mexico, the State of New York, the State of North Carolina, the State of Oregon, Josh Shapiro in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of Rhode Island, the State of Vermont, the State of Washington, and the State of Wisconsin allege that defendants, the Corporation for National and Community Service, operating as AmeriCorps, and Jennifer Bastress Tahmasebi, in her official capacity as Interim Head of the Corporation for National and Community Service, have acted unlawfully by attempting to dismantle AmeriCorps, an independent agency of the federal government since 1993. Plaintiffs allege that defendants initiated efforts to dismantle AmeriCorps by releasing members and volunteers, placing most agency staff on administrative leave in anticipation of terminations, and cancelling contracts and grants, ultimately resulting in 85% of its paid staff being on administrative leave; issued Reduction in Force (RIF) notices; and notified State Service Commissions that nearly $400 million of AmeriCorps programs were immediately terminated stating that their programs “no longer effectuated agency priorities” and that all award activities should cease immediately. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by acting contrary to law by closing AmeriCorps programs en masse and terminating the staff and resources AmeriCorps needs to carry out its mission and did so without a legitimate or legal basis. Plaintiffs additionally allege defendants violated the APA when they failed to meet statutory public notice and comment rulemaking requirements. Plaintiffs also posit that defendants’ actions are both arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA, as they provided no reasoned explanation for their decision; failed to consider their legitimate reliance interests of States, grantees, the public, and other interested entities; failed to conduct statutorily mandated hearings during which those interests may have been presented; failed to consider reasonable alternatives; and failed to weigh the purported benefits against the costs. Plaintiffs claim defendants’ actions are ultra vires and violated Separation of Powers, stating that as Congress created AmeriCorps and the programs it administers, the Executive cannot incapacitate AmeriCorps from carrying out statutorily assigned duties by terminating the staff it needs to accomplish its mission and by cutting approximately $400 million worth of AmeriCorps programs already funded by Congressional appropriations, which violates Constitutional and statutory mandates, contravenes Congressional intent, and was unlawful. Plaintiffs ask that the Court (1) declare that the decision to dismantle AmeriCorps and actions taken to effectuate it are unlawful and/ or unconstitutional because they violate the APA and/or the U.S. Constitution; (2) postpone the effective date of the decision to dismantle AmeriCorps and actions taken to effectuate it; (3) vacate the decision to dismantle AmeriCorps and actions taken to effectuate it; and (4) preliminary and permanently enjoin defendants from effectuating the decision to dismantle AmeriCorps.
Topics:
Governance | Government Relations & Community Affairs
Date:
4/28/2025
PCUN v. Kristi Noem (D. Or. Apr. 28, 2025)
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (PCUN), the largest Latinx organization in the state of Oregon, Augustana Lutheran Church, Our Lady of Guadalupe Parish, San Francisco Interfaith Council, and Westminster Presbyterian Church allege that defendants, Kristi Noem, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Todd Lyons, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Pete Flores, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection enacted an unconstitutional and unlawful policy that violates the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). On January 20, 2025, Acting DHS Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued a memo eliminating the “protected areas” designation and prohibition on ICE enforcement in those areas (the “Huffman Memo”), which was followed further on January 21, 2025, when former Acting ICE Director Caleb Vitello issued a memo entitled “Common Sense Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas” charging ICE Assistant Field Office Directors (AFODs) and Assistant Special Agents in Charge (ASACs) with determining whether, where, and when to conduct immigration enforcement in or near a protected area/sensitive locations (such as the premises of schools, places of worship, funerals, and other religious ceremonies) (the “Vitello Memo”). Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ choice to end protections for sensitive locations has harmed plaintiffs and protected areas themselves. Plaintiffs allege that following the revocation of protections for sensitive locations, many entities such as schools, daycares, medical facilities, foodbanks, community-based organizations, social services agencies, and places of worship serving large immigrant populations witnessed a decline in the number of people attending events and seeking services which has impaired the entities’ missions and abilities to provide community care. Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ actions violated the APA by way of being arbitrary and capricious, being contrary to constitutional rights, and that defendants have violated both the RFRA and the First Amendment. Plaintiffs ask that the Court issue an order declaring defendants’ rescission of protections for sensitive locations (1) unconstitutional, void, and of no effect, and (2) violative of RFRA; and further to find that the Huffman Memo is unlawful because it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” and thus, to vacate the Huffman Memo in its entirely, enjoin defendants from taking any immigration enforcement actions that are not authorized in accordance with the historical 2021 “Mayorkas Memo” that accorded especial consideration of immigration enforcement in so called sensitive locations.
Topics:
Immigration | International Students
Date:
4/28/2025
OCR Finds the University of Pennsylvania in Violation of Title IX (Apr. 28, 2025)
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (the Department) announced its finding that the University of Pennsylvania’s policies and practices of permitting male-to-female transgender student athletes to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities, violated Title IX in that it denied other women equal opportunities. The Department tendered a proposed Resolution Agreement to the University to resolve the purported violations, giving the University ten days to voluntarily resolve the finding, or risk a referral to the U.S. Department of Justice for further enforcement proceedings. The proposed Resolution Agreement requires the University to: “(i) issue a statement to the University community stating that the University will comply with Title IX in all of its athletic programs; (ii) restore to all female athletes all individual athletic records, titles, honors, awards or similar recognition for Division I swimming competitions misappropriated by male athletes competing in female categories; and (iii) send a letter to each female athlete whose individual recognition is restored expressing an apology on behalf of the University for allowing her educational experience in athletics to be marred by sex discrimination.”
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Gender Equity in Athletics | Student Athlete Issues | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
Date:
4/28/2025
U.S. Department of Education Title VI Discriminatory Practices Investigations of Harvard University and Harvard Law Review (Apr. 28, 2025)
U.S. Department of Education (the Department) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced investigations into Harvard University and the Harvard Law Review based on reports of alleged race-based discrimination in the operations of the journal. Specifically, allegations were made attributing a statement to the Law Review’s editor including that they wrote that it was “concerning” that “[f]our of the five people” who wanted to reply to an article about police reform “are white men.” Additionally, concerns were reported about another editor suggested “that a piece should be subject to expedited review because the author was a minority.” In the announcement of the investigation, the Department wrote that “[t]he allocation of opportunities or recognition based on race can deprive other students of educational opportunities to which they would be entitled by merit, which is unacceptable for recipients of federal funding.” Both the Department and HHS will investigate the University’s relationship with the journal, including financial ties, oversight procedures, selection policies, and other documentation for both membership and article publication.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination
Date:
4/23/2025
Transparency Regarding Foreign Influence at American Universities (Apr. 23, 2025)
Executive Order “Transparency Regarding Foreign Influence at American Universities.” This Order seeks to “end the secrecy surrounding foreign funds in American educational institutions, protect the marketplace of ideas from propaganda sponsored by foreign governments, and safeguard America’s students and research from foreign exploitation.” The Order appoints the Secretary of Education to take all appropriate actions to enforce the requirements of section 1011f of Title 20, U.S.C. to require complete and timely disclosure by higher education institutions of foreign funding, including: (1) reversing or rescinding any actions by the prior administration that permit higher education institutions to maintain improper secrecy regarding their foreign funding; (2) require universities to more specifically disclose details about foreign funding, including the true source and purpose of the funds; (3) provide the American people with greater access to information about foreign funding to higher education institutions; and (4) hold accountable higher education institutions that fail to comply with the law concerning disclosure of foreign funding by way of conducting audits and investigations where necessary to ensure compliance. The Order states that Federal grant funds will not be provided in cases of noncompliance. The White House also issued a Fact Sheet with the Order.
Topics:
Endowments & Gifts | International Activities | Taxes & Finances
Date:
4/23/2025
Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy (Apr. 23, 2025)
Executive Order “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy.” This Order seeks to eliminate disparate-impact liability, defining it as holding that “a near insurmountable presumption of unlawful discrimination exists where there are any differences in outcomes in certain circumstances among different races, sexes, or similar groups, even if there is no facially discriminatory policy or practice or discriminatory intent involved, and even if everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed.” The Order also states that disparate-impact liability undermines national values and runs contrary to equal protection under the law and violates the Constitution. The Order seeks to revoke regulations that were promulgated under 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1, including: (1) the Presidential approval of July 25, 1966, of the Department of Justice Title VI regulations (31 Fed. Reg. 10269), as applied to 28 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(2) in full; and (2) the Presidential approval of July 5, 1973, of the Department of Justice Title VI regulations (38 Fed. Reg. 17955, FR Doc. 73-13407), as applied to the words “or effect” in both places they appear in 28 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3), and as applied to 28 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(6)(ii) and 28 C.F.R. 42.104(c)(2) in full. The Order requires the Attorney General to initiate appropriate action to repeal or amend the implementing regulations for Title VI for all agencies to the extent they contemplate disparate-impact liability, and in coordination with the heads of all other agencies, report to the President all existing regulations, guidance, rules, or orders that impose disparate-impact liability or similar requirements, and detail agency steps for their amendment or repeal, as appropriate under applicable law; and other laws or decisions, including at the State level, that impose disparate impact liability and any appropriate measures to address any constitutional or other legal infirmities. Finally, the Order requires the Attorney General and the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to jointly formulate and issue guidance or technical assistance to employers regarding appropriate methods to promote equal access to employment regardless of whether an applicant has a college education. The White House also issued a Fact Sheet with the Order.
Topics:
Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Higher Education Act (HEA)
Date:
4/23/2025
Preparing Americans for High-Paying Skilled Trade Jobs of the Future (Apr. 23, 2025)
Executive Order “Preparing Americans for High-Paying Skilled Trade Jobs.” This Order seeks to fully equip the American worker to produce world-class products and implement world-leading technologies, as well as consolidate and streamline fragmented Federal workforce development programs “that are too disconnected from propelling workers into secure, well-paying, and high-need American jobs.” The Order requires the Secretaries of Labor, Commerce, and Education to review all Federal workforce development programs within 90 days of the date of the Order and develop a report setting forth strategies to help the American worker. The report must identify opportunities to integrate systems that realign resources to address critical workforce needs and in-demand skills of emerging industries and companies investing in the United States as determined, to the extent permissible by law, by prospective employers, including: administrative reforms to agency policies and programmatic requirements, process improvements to better the experience of program participants, and recommendations to further restructure and consolidate programs; Federal workforce development and education programs or related spending within those programs, that are ineffective or otherwise fail to achieve their desired outcomes; available statutory authorities to promote innovation and system integration in pursuit of better employment and earnings outcomes for program participants; opportunities to invest in the upskilling of incumbent workers to meet rapidly evolving skill demands of their industries, including the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace; strategies to identify alternative credentials and assessments to the four-year college degree that can be mapped to the specific skill needs of prospective employers; and efficiencies to streamline formation collection. Finally, the Order requires the Secretaries of Labor, Commerce, and Education to submit a plan to reach and surpass 1 million new active apprentices within 120 days of the date of the Order. The plan must identify (1) avenues to expand registered apprenticeships to new industries and occupations, including high-growth and emerging sectors; (2) measures to scale this proven model across the country, improve its efficiency, and provide consistent support to program participants; opportunities, including through the Perkins V Act and Federal student aid, to enhance connections between the education system and registered apprenticeships. The White House also issued a Fact Sheet with the Order.
Topics:
Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Higher Education Act (HEA)

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.