Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Missouri, et al.  v. Trump, et al. (E.D. Mo. Feb. 27, 2026) 

    Memorandum and Order Dismissing Case as Moot. Plaintiffs, the State of Missouri and several other states, sued the Secretary of Education and several federal officials alleging that the Biden administration exceeded its statutory authority in 2024 by implementing the Savings on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, which would have allowed for lower payments and forgiveness after 10 years of repayment, as opposed to the 20 or 25 years required under other income contingent repayment (ICR) plans. The district court granted a preliminary injunction with respect to part of the rule and, in February 2025, the Eighth Circuit affirmed and directed the district court to broaden the injunction to block the entire rule. Since the change in administration, the federal government has ceased defending the SAVE plan and Congress subsequently enacted legislation ending it. Because there is no longer a live case or controversy, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice as moot.  

    Topics:

    Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Students

  • Date:

    Pentagon Memorandum Eliminating Senior Service College Fellows Program at 13 Institutions (Feb. 27, 2026) 

    The Department of Defense sent a memorandum to senior Pentagon leadership sharing that it plans to eliminate the senior service college fellows programs at 13 institutions as well as 9 other organizations for the 2026-27 academic year. The memorandum identified 21 new partner institutions that could replace the fellowships, stating that these institutions meet the Department’s criteria for “intellectual freedom, minimal relationships with adversaries” and “minimal public expression in opposition to the Department.”   

    Topics:

    Governance | Government Relations & Community Affairs

  • Date:

    Department of Education Issues Guidance Related to its Initial Recognition Process for New Accrediting Agencies (Feb. 26, 2026)

    The Department of Education has issued an interpretive rule designed “to provide prospective accrediting agencies with additional clarity regarding the recognition process, pursuant to” Executive Order 14279, “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education.” The Department states that “in general, the provisions in this interpretive rule are designed to reduce unnecessary barriers to the recognition of accrediting agencies to promote competition in the market for assessing the quality of education or training offered by postsecondary institutions and programs.” The Department writes that the rule is intended to “increase competition, [] make it easier for colleges and universities to change accreditors, eliminate artificial barriers [], [and] refocus[] quality assurance on data-driven student outcomes.” The guidance provides the Department’s interpretation of a number of phrases included in the Department’s regulations governing the recognition of new accreditors located in 34 CFR Part 602. For example, citing “significant confusion” regarding the types of accrediting activities that must be conducted for two years prior to the Secretary recognizing an accrediting agency in 34 CFR 602.12(a)(2), the Department clarifies that the two-year clock “may start before the issuance of accreditation or pre accreditation.” The Department also clarifies its intention to shorten the review process for determining whether an accrediting agency meets the basic eligibility requirements and for completing its review of the applicants’ petition. 

    Topics:

    Accreditation | Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act

  • Date:

    Akoju v. University of New Hampshire (D. N.H. Feb. 26, 2026)

    Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff, a former graduate student at the University of New Hampshire proceeding pro se, sued the university alleging violations of Title VII and the Fourteenth Amendment after the school terminated her enrollment, ended her SEVIS status, and evicted her from her dorm following her failure to pay more than $14,000 in outstanding charges on her student account. The court denied plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO), finding that plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits of her claims because she received adequate notice of both the registration deadline and the consequences of failing to pay her balance. The court also found that the university’s actions were based on legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons that were consistent with institutional policies and not a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. Although the court acknowledged that plaintiff could suffer significant harm without injunctive relief, including the loss of her F-1 visa status, it found that this harm did not outweigh the deficiencies in her claims.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Students | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation | Student Housing | Students

  • Date:

    Department of Labor Proposes Rule Clarifying Employee and Independent Contractor Classification (Feb. 26, 2026)

    The Department of Labor announced a proposed rule which would rescind the Department’s 2024 final rule addressing the classification of independent contractors and replace it with an analysis for employee classification similar to one adopted by the Department in 2021. If implemented, the rule would apply an “economic reality” test to determine whether a worker is in business as an independent contractor or as an employee economically dependent on an employer for work. Comments on the proposed rule are due April 28, 2026.  

    Topics:

    Faculty & Staff | Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Categorization of Employees

  • Date:

    Wynn v. University of Toledo (6th Cir. Feb. 26, 2026)

    Opinion Affirming Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, the former Director of Labor/Employee Relations and HR Compliance at the University of Toledo, sued the university alleging race discrimination and retaliation after he was denied a promotion, terminated, and arrested following his failure to return a university-issued laptop. The district court granted summary judgment for the university, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiff failed to establish pretext because the university offered legitimate, well-supported reasons for each action, including (1) evidence that another candidate was more qualified for the promotion; (2) extensive documented performance problems supporting termination; and (3) a reasonable, non-retaliatory basis for involving law enforcement after plaintiff failed to return his laptop. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    United States of America v. Regents of the University of California (C.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2026)  

    Complaint Seeking Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), filed a lawsuit against the Regents of the University of California, alleging that UCLA violated Title VII by allowing a hostile work environment for Jewish and Israeli employees. The complaint alleges that the antisemitic harassment was both severe and pervasive. The complaint further alleges that the university failed to enforce its policies, properly investigate complaints, or discipline offenders, and that the internal complaint system was ineffective. DOJ is seeking injunctive relief, including requiring various policy reforms and anti-discrimination training, and also damages for employees who were subjected to a hostile work environment or other discriminatory conduct.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    International Student Recruiting Firm Enters Settlement Agreement with Department of Justice on False Claims Act Allegations (Feb. 24, 2026) 

    The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it has entered into a settlement agreement with the international student recruiting firm Study Across the Pond LLC (SATP) requiring the firm to pay $1.3 million to resolve allegations that SATP violated the False Claims Act when it knowingly caused foreign universities in the United Kingdom to submit false claims to the Department of Education (ED) through arrangements that violated the federal ban on incentive compensation. Specifically, the DOJ alleged that SATP demanded a share of the tuition paid to the universities for any students the company recruited and then created sham records to hide the tuition-sharing arrangements from ED.  

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | False Claims Act (FCA) | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Higher Education Act (HEA) | Immigration | International Students | Research | Students

  • Date:

    Department of Education Announces Additional Partnerships with Federal Agencies (Feb. 23, 2026) 

    The Department of Education (ED) announced two new interagency agreements (IAA) with the Department of State (State) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). State will partner with ED on the Section 117 foreign gifts reporting and HHS will partner with ED on family engagement and school support programs. A fact sheet on the partnership with State can be found here. A fact sheet on the partnership with HHS can be found here.  

    Topics:

    Endowments & Gifts | Taxes & Finances

  • Date:

    Blythe v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (D. Nev. Feb. 20, 2026)

    Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a Division I baseball recruit for the University of Nevada, Reno, challenged the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) Five-Year Rule and sought a preliminary injunction barring enforcement after his hardship waiver was denied and he was declared ineligible based on his prior seasons playing baseball at Division II and NAIA institutions. The court held that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of his Sherman Act claim, finding that the rule was commercial in nature and produced substantial anticompetitive effects, as well as finding the NCAA’s procompetitive rationales for the rule were insufficient. The court reasoned that the Five-Year Rule “forecloses the opportunity for qualified student-athletes from non-NCAA schools from entering a labor market for Division I baseball . . . simply because of their non-NCAA status.” While the court concluded that plaintiff faced immediate and irreparable harm “due to the time-sensitive loss of season play, compensation and related opportunity,” the NCAA “[would] not.” Accordingly, the court granted the preliminary injunction and enjoined enforcement of the Five-Year Rule against the plaintiff.  

    Topics:

    Antitrust | Athletics & Sports | Athletics Compliance & NCAA Rules | Student Athlete Issues | Students | Taxes & Finances

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