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:
ACE Urges Changes to Foreign Gift Reporting Bill Passed by U.S. House of Representatives (Mar. 31, 2025)
The American Council on Education (ACE) and several other higher education associations urged lawmakers to revise the “Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions” (DETERRENT) Act, which passed the House of Representatives on March 27, 2025. ACE sent a letter to House leadership on March 25, 2025, outlining concerns with the DETERRENT Act, which it avers would dramatically expand foreign gift reporting requirements for colleges and universities by lowering the threshold for reporting foreign gifts and contracts from $250,000 to $50,000—and to $0 for “countries of concern.” Concern is also expressed for the legislation’s intent to (1) ban institutions from signing contracts with countries of concern unless the secretary of education grants a waiver, (2) require some institutions to maintain public-facing databases listing foreign gifts and contracts to individual researchers, (3) mandate that certain private colleges report foreign investments or holdings, and (4) impose steep new penalties for noncompliance, some tied to eligibility for federal student aid.
Topics:
Contracts | Endowments & Gifts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Taxes & FinancesDate:
U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Issues Final Warning Letter to Maine on Title IX Compliance (Mar. 31, 2025)
U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a final warning letter (the Letter) to the Maine Department of Education (MDOE) regarding alleged ongoing Title IX compliance issues. The Letter serves as OCR’s final step in its Title IX investigation before its conclusions are conveyed to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for enforcement. OCR alleges that MDOE has not taken action “to protect women and girls from discrimination in sports or intimate space” since OCR provided MDOE with a proposed Resolution Agreement on March 19, 2025. Specifically, the Letter asserts that MDOE is in violation of Title IX by (1) allowing male students to participate in female athletics (whether interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural); and (2) denying to female students (particularly female student-athletes) access to intimate facilities on the basis of sex, such as female-only locker rooms and bathrooms. OCR has issued an Impasse Letter to inform MDOE that a letter of impending enforcement action will be issued 10 calendar days from the date of the Letter unless MDOE reaches an agreement with OCR and executes an OCR-approved Resolution Agreement within that 10-day period.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Gender Equity in Athletics | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
FERPA and PPRA Dear Educator Letter (Mar. 28, 2025)
U.S. Department of Education’s Student Privacy Policy Office (the Department) Dear Educator Letter (the Letter) re: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) Compliance. The Letter is directed to Chief State School Officers and Superintendents at primary and secondary educational institutions receiving federal funding and specifically notes priority concerns related to the classification of “gender plans” as well as the classification of death threats made by students against other students. The Letter states that the Department stands with parents in exercising their rights to the full extent of the law and announced a revitalized effort to make FERPA and PPRA the source of proactive, effective checks on schools that try to keep parents in the dark. Finally, the Letter requests that each state primary and secondary educational agency submit documentation no later than April 30, 2025, to provide assurance that the state agency and respective local educational agencies are complying with FERPA and PPRA, regarding the priority concerns.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) | Freedom of Information & Public Record Laws | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Privacy & TransparencyDate:
Financial Accounting Standards Board Lease Survey (Mar. 28, 2025)
The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) requested participation in a post-implementation review (PIR) survey on leases by May 31, 2025. Survey questions cover: accounting personnel; departments other than accounting and IT; IT systems; preparation costs; audit costs; investor/lender education; and practical expedients. A more detailed review of the contents of the survey can be found here; to participate in the survey, you may click here.
Topics:
Corporate Responsibility | Evaluation of Operations & Staff in the General Counsel’s Office | General Counsel | Taxes & FinancesDate:
ACE Letter Endorsing the Tax-Free Pell Grant Act (Mar. 28, 2025)
The American Council on Education (ACE) sent a letter (the Letter) to the U.S. House of Representatives expressing strong support for the Tax-Free Pell Grant Act (the Act). The Letter states that the Act would repeal the taxability of Pell Grants and help hundreds of thousands of low-income Pell Grant recipients access the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC). Additionally, the Act expands the AOTC and the Lifetime Learning Credit to include essential student expenses like dependent care and computers. The Letter summarizes that approximately 550,000 Pell students will be impacted by this legislation, and the Act would simplify the tax code and ensure that low-income students access a critical tax benefit.
Topics:
Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | StudentsDate:
National Treasury Employees Union v. Russel Vought (D. D. C. Mar. 28, 2025)
Memorandum Opinion Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion and Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Virginia Poverty Law Center, Rev. Eva Steege, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Employee Association allege that the actions taken by defendants to formally terminate the CFPB are unconstitutional, and seek a temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs allege that following the Stop Work Order issued to the CFPB by Russel Vought, Acting Director of the CFPB on February 10, 2025, all probationary and term-limited employees were fired without cause, funding was cut off, contracts terminated, and all offices were closed and a reduction in force (RIF) was applied to everyone else in the Bureau. Plaintiffs allege both statutory and constitutional violations, as well as violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ actions exceed executive authority and usurp legislative authority, arguing that the CFPB can only be eliminated by Congress. Plaintiffs further allege that the Acting Director’s actions to close the agency on behalf of the President violated both the separation of powers inherent in the U.S. Constitution and the statute that created the CFPB assigned it mandatory duties. Finding in favor for plaintiffs, the Court found dozens of individual plaintiffs had Article III standing, both the employees who have had their jobs terminated abruptly but also the consumers at large, such as one plaintiff with a terminal illness who had been trying to enroll in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program and contacted the CFPB for help. She was informed that she was entitled to forgiveness, as well as $15,000 refund of overpayments, however, after the stop work order, she was unable to follow up with any staff to determine her next steps and feared that after her demise her family would be left with her student loan debt. The former student subsequently passed away on March 15, 2025, before any resolution could be found by way of the CFPB. Ruling for plaintiffs, the Court held that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims and that they would suffer irreparable harm absent immediate court intervention. As such, it issued a preliminary injunction that maintains CFPB’s existence and reinstates and preserves its contracts, work force, data, and operational capacity, and protects employees’ ability to perform statutorily required activities.
Topics:
Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | StudentsDate:
Pavia v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2025)
Amicus Brief in Favor of Appellant. Amici, the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources, the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, and the Thurgood Marshall College Fund allege that if the District Court’s preliminary injunction against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is affirmed, the injunction jeopardizes the NCAA’s ability to effectively set and enforce nationwide eligibility rules for intercollegiate athletics. Amici argue that contrary to the District Court’s ruling that “rules regulating who can play … became ‘commercial in nature’… [once the NCAA] lifted the restriction on [name, image, and likeness] NIL compensation” current student-athlete eligibility criteria are non-commercial rules, stating “meaningful NIL compensation impacts a tiny sliver of the half-million-plus student-athletes who compete on nearly 20,000 intercollegiate teams.” They also argue that “the District Court’s preliminary injunction threatens to shift the formulation and enforcement of the NCAA’s eligibility rules from educators and athletics administrators to federal courts.” Further distinguishing that different from other courts, “the District Court’s analysis appears to suggest that because the NCAA now allows athletes to pursue NIL deals, all of its eligibility rules are automatically ‘commercial’ – regardless of their purpose or function –and therefore subject to antitrust scrutiny.” Amici criticize the District Court’s lack of acknowledgement of the extra-curricular nature of intercollegiate athletics, and point out that if allowed to proceed, “a patchwork of ad hoc rule adjustments and waivers granted by judges around the country – rather than by athletics conferences or the NCAA – will replace a nationwide system developed and implemented by the schools and their membership organizations.” Amici conclude that courts should not be arbiters of who qualifies as a “student-athlete” and the Circuit should reverse the injunction granted below.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Athletics Compliance & NCAA Rules | Student Athlete Issues | 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.