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:
American Federation of Teachers v. U.S. Department of Education (D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2025)
Complaint from the American Federation of Teachers requesting the court to compel the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) to abide by Congress’s command and provide borrowers with the ability to repay their loans through the affordable income-driven repayment plans to which they are entitled. Plaintiff is a membership organization representing 1.8 million teachers, higher education faculty and professional staff, federal, state, and local government employees, and nurses and other healthcare professionals; many of whom have student loan debt and are eligible for Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF). Plaintiffs note that the Income-Contingent Repayment Plan (ICR) is made by way of statute in 1994, and mandates that “the Secretary shall offer a borrower of a loan. . . an income contingent repayment plan, with varying annual repayment amounts based on the income of the borrower.” Plaintiffs contend that on February 26, 2025, the current Administration issued a Stop Work Order, directing all loan servicers to stop accepting and processing income-driven repayment applications; effectively shutting down income-driven repayment option for at least three months, with no indications as to when, if ever, they will be reinstated. As a result, plaintiffs allege borrowers are unable to access affordable monthly payment plans, and some borrowers are being thrust into default on their debt, as well as some public service workers are being denied their statutory right to lower their monthly payment and earn credit toward public Service Loan Forgiveness. Plaintiffs request that the court issue both preliminary injunctive relief and permanent injunctive relief preventing the Department from collecting from borrowers who are eligible for income-driven repayment until it satisfies its statutory, regulatory, and contractual obligations under IBR, ICR, and PSLF.
Topics:
UncategorizedDate:
Statement of Interest Supporting Equal Access to Educational Opportunities and Facilities for Jewish UCLA Students (Mar. 18, 2025)
The U.S. Justice Department (the Department) filed a statement of interest in the Central District of California as part of the ongoing litigation of Frankel v. Regents of the University of California (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2024) to advance the appropriate interpretation of federal laws that prohibit colleges and universities from discriminating against students because of their religion or national origin. The statement of interest is part of the nationwide efforts to combat antisemitism from the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Equal Protection | First Amendment & Free Speech | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | StudentsDate:
National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Donald Trump (4th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025)
Opinion and Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for a Stay of the Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland sought preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting Defendants from enforcing Executive Orders 14151 “Ending Radical Government DEI Programs and Preferences” and 14173 “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” and a declaration that the two Executive Orders are unlawful and unconstitutional. On February 21, 2025, the district court granted a preliminary injunction. Defendants then sought to stay the injunction pending an interlocutory appeal, which the lower court denied. However, the Fourth Circuit determined that Defendants satisfied the factors for a stay under Nken v. Holder, agreed with Defendants’ view that the two Executive Orders are of “distinctly limited scope. . . [and] do not purport to establish the illegality of all efforts to advance diversity, equity, or inclusion, and they should not be so understood,” and also found that the challenged provisions do not on their face, violate the First or Fifth Amendments. Concurring opinions further critiqued the scope of the underlying preliminary injunction, which enjoined nondefendants from taking action against nonplaintiffs.
Topics:
Diversity in Employment | Faculty & StaffDate:
OCR initiates Title VI investigations into 52 Universities (Mar. 14, 2025)
The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened investigations into 45 universities under Title VI following OCR’s Dear Colleague Letter (Feb. 14, 2025) (DCL). The investigations arise from allegations that institutional partnerships with “The Ph.D. Project” violate Title VI due to its allegedly race-based program eligibility restrictions. OCR also opened investigations into six additional universities for allegedly awarding impermissible race-based scholarships and into one program, which allegedly segregates students on the basis of race. The institutions under investigation include: Arizona State University – Main Campus; Boise State University; Cal Poly Humboldt; California State University – San Bernadino; Carnegie Mellon University; Clemson University; Cornell University; Duke University; Emory University; George Mason University; Georgetown University; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); Montana State University-Bozeman; New York University (NYU); Rice University; Rutgers University; The Ohio State University – Main Campus; Towson University; Tulane University; University of Arkansas – Fayetteville; University of California-Berkeley; University of Chicago; University of Cincinnati – Main Campus; University of Colorado – Colorado Springs; University of Delaware; University of Kansas; University of Kentucky; University of Michigan-Ann Arbor; University of Minnesota-Twin Cities; University of Nebraska at Omaha; University of New Mexico – Main Campus; University of North Dakota – Main Campus; University of North Texas – Denton; University of Notre Dame; University of NV – Las Vegas; University of Oregon; University of Rhode Island; University of Utah; University of Washington-Seattle; University of Wisconsin-Madison; University of Wyoming; Vanderbilt University; Washington State University; Washington University in St. Louis; Yale University; Grand Valley State University; Ithaca College; New England College of Optometry; University of Alabama; University of Minnesota, Twin Cities; University of South Florida; University of Oklahoma; and Tulsa School of Community Medicine.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & AccommodationDate:
State of New Jersey v. Donald Trump (1st Cir. Mar. 11, 2025)
Order and Opinion Denying Defendants’ Application for a Partial Stay. Plaintiffs, including State and Attorneys General of Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the City and County of San Francisco, allege that Defendants, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Benjamin Huffman as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Social Security Administration (SSA), Michelle King as the Acting Commissioner of the SSA, U.S. Department of State, Marco Rubio as the Secretary of State, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Dorothy Fink as the Acting Secretary of HHS, have acted unconstitutionally in the announcement of Executive Order 14160 “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” (the Executive Order) and that actions taken by defendant agencies to implement or enforce the Executive Order would effectively violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Nationwide preliminary injunctions were issued by courts including the District of Maryland, the Western District of Washington at Seattle, and in the District of New Hampshire. Defendants sought and were denied a stay of the preliminary injunction by the First Circuit. The First Circuit was unpersuaded by Defendants’ argument that the injunction “prevents the President from carrying out his broad authority over and responsibility for immigration matters” resulting in irreparable harm to it and thus the public interest, as well as the claim that the injunction itself is overly broad to the extent that it “prevents . . . the Executive Branch as a whole from beginning the process of formulating relevant polices and guidance for implementing the President’s Order.” It denied the request for partial stay, noting that Defendants declined to make any developed arguments showing that the Executive Order itself was either constitutional or compliant with 8 U.S.C. § 1401. In addition, the First Circuit noted that Defendants failed to identify specific steps they wish to but are enjoined from taking. Therefore, it denied the request for a partial stay, and the injunction of the Executive Order remains in effect.
Topics:
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International StudentsDate:
OCR Title VI Letter to 60 Institutions of Higher Education (Mar. 10, 2025)
The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) sent letters to sixty postsecondary institutions warning of potential enforcement actions if they fail to fulfill their obligations under Title VI to protect Jewish students. Institutions that received letters include: American University; Arizona State University; Boston University; Brown University; California State University, Sacramento; Chapman University; Columbia University; Cornell University; Drexel University; Eastern Washington University; Emerson College; George Mason University; Harvard University; Illinois Wesleyan University; Indiana University, Bloomington; Johns Hopkins University; Lafayette College; Lehigh University; Middlebury College; Muhlenberg College; Northwestern University; Ohio State University; Pacific Lutheran University; Pomona College; Portland State University; Princeton University; Rutgers University; Rutgers University-Newark; Santa Monica College; Sarah Lawrence College; Stanford University; State University of New York Binghamton, Rockland, and Purchase; Swarthmore College; Temple University; The New School; Tufts University; Tulane University; Union College; University of California Davis; University of California San Diego; University of California Santa Barbara; University of California, Berkeley; University of Cincinnati; University of Hawaii at Manoa; University of Massachusetts Amherst; University of Michigan; University of Minnesota, Twin Cities; University of North Carolina; University of South Florida; University of Southern California; University of Tampa; University of Tennessee; University of Virginia; University of Washington-Seattle; University of Wisconsin, Madison; Wellesley College; Whitman College; and Yale University.
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.