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:
Department of Justice Announces Admissions Policies investigations (Mar. 27, 2025)
The U.S. Department of Justice (the Department) announced a compliance review investigation directed by Attorney General Pamela Bondi into the admissions policies at Stanford University, University of California, Berkeley, University of California, Los Angeles, and University of California, Irvine. The investigation is part of efforts to advance President Trump’s Executive Orders on ending Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellow of Harvard Coll. (2023).
Topics:
Admissions | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | StudentsDate:
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education v. Linda McMahon (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2025)
Order Granting in part and Denying in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, National Center for Teacher Residencies, and Maryland Association of Colleges for Teacher Education filed for a Temporary Restraining Order/ Preliminary Injunction following the Department of Education’s (the Department) termination of grants awarded through the Teacher Quality Partnership Program (TQP), Supporting Effective Educator Development Program (SEED), and Teacher School Leader incentive program (TSL). The Grant Recipients’ Grant Awards were terminated upon the Department’s supposed finding that “the grant is . . . inconsistent with, and no longer effectuates, Department priorities.” Plaintiffs’ TRO was granted on March 10, 2025, and a hearing to consider the preliminary injunction was held on March 13, 2025. In determining that plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction, the Court noted that the Termination Letters, though based on the “department priorities” established by the Secretary or Department, must still go through public notice and comment rulemaking. Specifically, “nothing before the court supports, or tends to support, a conclusion that in fact the Department reviewed the grant award of each Grant recipient and, on such review, in fact, found it to run afoul of previously lawfully established agency priorities.” Finding that plaintiffs made a clear showing that the Department’s termination of the Grant Recipients’ Grant Program awards violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and that they will likely suffer irreparable harm due to being deprived of “essential funding required to continue their teacher preparation programs and the deprivation “complete[ly] eviscerates [] [p]laintiffs’ mission” the Court ordered Defendants to reinstate the TQP, SEED, and TSL Grant Awards of the National Center for Teacher Residencies as well as Grant Recipient members in accordance with the Grand Award Notification terms and conditions within five days of entry of the Order. Further, Defendants are ordered to not terminate and are enjoined from terminating any TQP, SEED, or TSL Grant Program award. The remaining portion of plaintiffs’ motion, specifically, plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claim that the Termination Provision of Executive Order 14151 (“Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”) is unconditionally vague, did not meet the burden required and is denied.
Topics:
UncategorizedDate:
American Association of University Professors v. United States Department of Justice (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2025)
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers allege that the Trump Administration’s actions in (1) commencing an investigation of Columbia University for its asserted but unspecified failure to address antisemitism on campus, (2) canceling approximately $400 million in critical federal research funding without prior notice, explanation, or any form of due process, and (3) demanding that the University adopt a list of sweeping programmatic and structural changes within one week as “a precondition” for the University’s “continued financial relationship with the United States government,” valued at approximately $5 billion are “an existential gun to the head for a university.” Plaintiffs allege that these actions violate First Amendment Freedom of Speech as the First Amendment prohibits the government from using threats of legal sanction and other means of coercion to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech or academic freedom. Plaintiffs allege that the administration is implementing unconstitutional conditions on federal funding and “the government may not place a condition on the receipt of a benefit or subsidy that infringes upon the recipient’s constitutionally protected rights, even if the government has no obligation to offer the benefit in the first instance.” Plaintiffs allege procedural and substantive violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) with respect to the March 7, 2025, funding withdrawal and the March 13th letter as defendants did not provide an opportunity for a hearing or make an express finding on record as to the University’s alleged noncompliance with Title VI, and such actions were both arbitrary and capricious as the withdrawal was either reasonable nor reasonably explained. Plaintiffs allege that the March 13th letter was contrary to law and exceeded defendants’ statutory authority, as no law grants defendants the authority to demand expulsion or multi-year suspension of particular students or to dictate a fundamental restructuring of a university’s disciplinary system or require unspecified comprehensive admissions reform or academic receivership. They further alleged that such actions violate separation of powers, ultra vires. Finally, plaintiffs allege the lack of fair notice or a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the termination of $400 million in federal funding is a violation of due process. Plaintiffs request that the court declare unlawful and set aside defendants’ termination of federal financial assistance to Columbia University announced on March 7, 2025; the demands set forth in defendants’ March 13th letter; declare that defendants’ cancelation of federal grants without observance of Title VI’s statutory and regulatory requirements and imposition of demands upon threat of withholding future federal funding violate the First, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, violate the separation of powers, are ultra vires, and constitute an unconstitutional condition on federal financial assistance; and enter a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring defendants to immediately reinstate or restore all grants and contracts to Columbia University and plaintiffs’ members that were unlawfully terminated, canceled, or paused, and prohibiting defendants from: (i) terminating, canceling, pausing, issuing stop-work orders, or otherwise interfering with grants or contracts purportedly in response to Title VI violations, (ii) engaging in any purported Title VI investigation involving grants or contracts except in compliance with Title VI, its implementing regulations, the APA, and the Constitution, or (iii) enforcing the demands made in defendants’ March 13th letter, or from insisting on the fulfillment of any or all of those demands or any other demands as a precondition for providing any benefit or avoiding any sanction under Title VI, except upon findings required by, and pursuant to the processes required by, Title VI and its implementing regulations.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Contracts | First Amendment & Free Speech | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored ResearchDate:
American Association of University Professors v. Marco Rubio (D. Mass. Mar. 25, 2025)
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) , the AAUP Harvard Faculty Chapter, the AAUP at New York University, Rutgers AAUP – American Federation of Teachers, and the middle East Studies Association allege that defendants’ have established an “ideological-deportation policy,” in light of their announced intention to carry out large-scale arrests, detentions, and deportations of noncitizen students and faculty who participate in pro-Palestinian protests and other related expression and association, which plaintiffs aver has far-reaching implications for expressive and associational rights and effectively prevents or impedes plaintiffs’ members from hearing from, and associating with, their noncitizen students and colleagues. Plaintiffs brought this action following the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate. Plaintiffs allege that the ideological-deportation policy violates the First Amendment because it entails the arrest, detention, and deportation of noncitizen students and faculty on the basis of, or in retaliation for, their political viewpoints and because the policy is not narrowly tailored to any compelling government interest. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants’ threats to punish constitutionally protected speech violates the First Amendment and defendants’ threat to arrest, detain, and deport noncitizen students and faculty based on their political viewpoints violates the First Amendment because the threats are coercive and would chill individuals of ordinary firmness from exercising their expressive and associational rights. Plaintiffs further allege that the policy violates the Fifth Amendment because it invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement as it fails to give noncitizen students and faculty fair warning as to what speech and association the government believes to be grounds for arrest, detention, and deportation. Finally, plaintiffs allege that the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to constitutional right, and because it exceeds defendants’ statutory authority. Plaintiffs request that the Court declare that the policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments and the APA and set the policy aside; enjoin defendants from implementing or enforcing the policy–including, without limitation, through investigation, surveillance, arrest, detention, deportation, or any other adverse action; declare that defendants’ threats to arrest, detain, and deport noncitizen students and faculty based on their political viewpoints violates the First Amendment, and enjoin defendants from continuing to make those threats; and to the extent defendants rely on the security and related grounds of inadmissibility, including the “endorse or espouse” and foreign policy provisions, as the basis for carrying out the ideological-deportation policy, declare that those provision violate the First and Fifth Amendments as applied, and enjoin defendants from applying those provisions.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & AccommodationDate:
U.S. Department of Education Reopens Income-driven Repayment Plan and Loan Consolidation Applications (Mar. 26, 2025)
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Federal Student Aid reopened the online income-driven repayment (IDR) plan and loan consolidation applications for borrowers. The Department reported that the application was temporarily paused to comply with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals injunction, which directed the Department to cease implementation of the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan and parts of other IDR plans.
Topics:
Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | StudentsDate:
Announcement from Columbia University on its Work to Combat Discrimination, Harassment, and Antisemitism (Mar. 21, 2025)
In response to the immediate cancellation of approximately $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University from the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Education (ED), and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), the University published its comprehensive strategy to make its campus safer, more welcoming, and respectful of the rights of all. In the announcement, the University wrote: It is committed to rigorous and impartial enforcement of its rules and antidiscrimination policies to ensure a safe campus environment and continuation of all academic functions; it plans to do a comprehensive review of its admission procedures; hold a greater commitment to institutional neutrality; develop a K-12 curriculum on how to have difficult conversations and dialogue across differences and topics related to antisemitism; develop improvements to the disciplinary process, including the University Judicial Board; clarifying that protests in academic buildings, and other places necessary for the conduct of University activities, are generally not acceptable under the Rules of University Conduct because of the likelihood of disrupting academic activities; all individuals who engage in protests or demonstrations, including those who wear face masks or face coverings, must, when asked, present their University identification to the satisfaction of a University Delegate or Public Safety Officer; public safety has determined that face masks or face coverings are not allowed for the purpose of concealing one’s identity in the commission of violations of University policies or state, municipal, or federal laws; the University has hired 36 special officers who will have the ability to remove individuals from campus and/or arrest them when appropriate; review from the Senior Vice Provost on educational programs to ensure they are comprehensive and balanced as well as steward the creation of new programs, curricular changes, etc. The Announcement concludes by stating that all of these steps are made to further Columbia’s basic mission to provide a safe and thriving environment for research and education while simultaneously preserving its commitment to academic freedom and institutional integrity.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
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.