Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
2/18/2025
Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies (Feb. 18, 2025)
Executive Order: “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies.” This Executive Order directs that in order “to improve the administration of the executive branch and to increase regulatory officials’ accountability to the American people, it shall be the policy of the executive branch to ensure Presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch.” To effectuate this goal, the EO mandates that “all executive departments and agencies, including so-called independent agencies, shall submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President before publication in the Federal Register.”
Topics:
Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Compliance & Risk Management
Date:
2/18/2025
Missouri v. Trump (8th Cir. Feb 18, 2025)
Opinion affirming the district court’s entry of a preliminary injunction and remanding for further proceedings. Plaintiffs are seven states challenging a rule by the U.S. Department of Education under the Biden administration that modified an existing income contingent repayment (“ICR”) plan for federal student loans, known as the Saving on a Valuable Education (“SAVE”) plan. Plaintiffs challenged the SAVE Rule as exceeding statutory authority given to the Secretary of Education because they claim the Secretary cannot forgive loans through an ICR plan, among other things. The district court concluded that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on this claim and preliminarily enjoined the early loan forgiveness provisions. On cross-appeals to the Eighth Circuit, plaintiffs requested a broadening of the injunction and federal officials sought vacatur of the preliminary injunction. The Circuit agreed with the district court that the states are likely to succeed in their claim that the Secretary’s authority to promulgate ICR plans does not authorize loan forgiveness at the end of the payment period. The court analyzed statutory history, including that Congress expanded repayment options for low-income borrowers by creating an income-based repayment (“IBR”) plan, which provided caps on payments and provided for loan forgiveness for borrowers using IBR once they made enough loan payments. Unlike IBR, the ICR statutory text does not provide a specific formula for calculating loan payments and does not explicitly state the Secretary can forgive loans. The court reasoned that “[t]he power Congress gave the Secretary in 20 U.S.C. § 1087e(d)(1) to create repayment plans means the Secretary must design ICR plans leading to actual repayment of the loans. The Secretary has gone well beyond this authority by designing a plan where loans are largely forgiven rather than repaid.” The Eighth Circuit affirmed the entry of the preliminary injunction but concluded that the district court erred by not enjoining the entire rule. The Circuit remanded the case with instructions to modify the injunction to cover the entire SAVE Rule and the revived forgiveness provisions under the 2015 REPAYE plan, which federal officials resuscitated to fill in the gap created after the SAVE Rule was enjoined by the district court.
Topics:
Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Students
Date:
2/18/2025
Kalia v. City Coll. of N.Y. (S.D. N.Y. Feb 18, 2025)
Order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff, a tenured professor of History at the City College of New York (CCNY), alleged race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and the analogous New York law against CCNY, the City University of New York (CUNY), and three employees. Plaintiff’s claims surround his longstanding effort to become a “Distinguished Professor” at CCNY. The court concluded that Plaintiff’s Title VII hostile work environment claim, and parts of the retaliation claim are precluded. Turning to plaintiff’s Title VII disparate treatment claim, the court concluded that Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege discriminatory motive. Plaintiff alleged that he suffered an adverse employment action when he was denied the Distinguished Professor appointment. The court noted that Plaintiff’s claim that his application “was much stronger” than other professors who were considered for the appointment was “insufficient to raise an inference of discrimination” and that plaintiff did not allege any factual allegations that he did not receive the appointment because of “his race, color, or national origin.” Additionally, Plaintiff’s claims that he was not allowed to take sabbatical and that he was denied the opportunity to teach a historiography course also failed. Turning to the remaining parts of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim, the court found that the claim “fail[ed] because he d[id] not establish a causal connection between any of his protected activity and the denial of his Distinguished Professor appointment.” It also noted that Plaintiff did not show that any person’s intent “was the proximate cause” of the Promotion and Benefits Committee’s decision to deny his appointment to Distinguished Professor.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation
Date:
2/14/2025
U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter on Title VI Compliance (Feb. 14, 2025)
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights Dear Colleague Letter re: Title VI Compliance. The Letter is issued to clarify and reaffirm the nondiscrimination obligations of schools and other entities that receive federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education (the Department). The letter states that pursuant to the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA) decision “nebulous concepts like racial balancing and diversity are not compelling interests.” It further states that federal law prohibits covered entities from using race in decision pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life. The Letter critiques other methods of potential race-based decision making such as utilizing students’ personal essays, writing samples, participation in extracurriculars, or other means to determine or predict a student’s race and to favor or disfavor such students. The Letter states that additional legal guidance will follow in due course and the Department intends to take appropriate measures to assess compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations consistent with the Letter beginning not later than 14 days from its issuance, including anti-discrimination requirements that are a condition of receiving federal funds. It concludes by stating that all educational institutions are advised to: (1) ensure that their policies and actions comply with existing civil rights law; (2) cease all efforts to circumvent prohibitions on the use of race relying on proxies or other indirect means to accomplish such ends; and (3) cease all reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or aggregators that are being used by institutions in an effort to circumvent prohibited use of race.
Topics:
Admissions | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Diversity in Employment | Faculty & Staff | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Students
Date:
2/14/2025
Pflag, Inc. v. Trump (D. Md. Feb. 14, 2025)
Memorandum Opinion granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiffs, the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, as well as PFLAG, a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting LGBTQ+ people, the American Association of Physicians for Human Rights, Inc., GLMA Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality, and six individually named transgender individuals who are all under nineteen years old filed a complaint against President Donald J. Trump, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation challenging the constitutionality of Executive Order 14168 titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” (the “Gender Identity Order”) and Executive Order 14189 titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” (the “Healthcare Order”). Plaintiffs contend that the EOs violate separation of powers, directly conflict with existing statutes, violate the Equal Protection Clause, and place conditions on federal funding that Congress did not prescribe. Finding in favor of the Plaintiffs, the Court found the EOs “a clear violation of the Constitution as attempts by the Executive Branch to place new conditions on federal funds are an improper attempt to wield Congress’s exclusive spending power and is a violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers principles.” (Citing County of Santa Clara v. Trump (N.D. Cal. 2017)). The Court goes on to point out that “defendants have not even attempted to show that Congress authorized, explicitly or implicitly, the withholding of federal funds from medical institutions that do not comply with the Administration’s policies on healthcare for transgender youth.” Finally, in determining that the President has exceeded his authority, the Court granted a temporary restraining order and ordered a nationwide injunction enjoining the enforcement of particular sections of the two EOs as they relate to a prohibition on federal funding for institutions that provide gender affirming medical care for transgender patients under the age of nineteen
Topics:
Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research
Date:
2/14/2025
Extension of the Completers’ List and Reporting Processes for Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment (Feb. 14, 2025)
The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid (the Department) announced that it extended the reporting deadline for the financial value transparency and gainful employment (FVT/GE) rule. Specifically, it extends the deadline for evaluation of Completers Lists and debt reporting for the 2024 cycle, as well as for submission of corrections to prior reporting. The “Department does not plan to produce any FVT/GE metrics prior to the new deadline and will take no enforcement or other punitive actions against institutions who have been unable to complete reporting to date.” The new deadline is September 30, 2025.
Topics:
Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Program Integrity & Gainful Employment
Date:
2/14/2025
National Labor Relations Board Rescission of Certain General Counsel Memoranda (Feb. 14, 2025)
Recission of several General Counsel Memoranda by the Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Memorandum GC 25-05, which was issued on February 14, rescinds more than thirty previously issued NLRB Memoranda. Fifteen Memoranda on various issues are rescinded outright; 13 Memoranda are rescinded pending further guidance; GC 22-04 “The Right to Refrain from Captive Audience and other Mandatory Meetings” is rescinded based upon the decision in Amazon.com Services LLC, 373 NLRB No. 136 (2024); GC 23-03 “Delegation to Regional Directors of Section 102.118 Authorization Regarding Record Requests from Federal, State, and Local Worker and Consumer Protection Agencies” is rescinded in favor of restoration of GC 18-01; and GC 21-01 “Guidance on Propriety of Mail Ballot Elections, pursuant to Aspirus Keweenaw, 370 NLRB No. 45 (2020)” is rescinded congruent with the Acting General Counsel’s view that “COVID-19 is no longer a Federal Public Health Emergency.”
Topics:
Faculty & Staff | Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Categorization of Employees
Date:
2/14/2025
Keeping Education Accessible and Ending Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates in Schools (Feb. 15, 2025)
Executive Order: “Keeping Education Accessible and Ending Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates in School.” This Executive Order directs the Secretary of Education to issue guidance on legal obligations as relevant to Covid-19 school mandates and provide a plan to end Covid-19 school mandates. Plans must include: (1) a list of discretionary Federal grants and contacts provided to institutions of higher education that are noncompliant with the guidance, and (2) each executive department or agency’s process for preventing Federal funds from being provided to, and rescinding Federal funds from, postsecondary institutions that are noncompliant with the guidance.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Contracts | Coronavirus | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research
Date:
2/12/2025
U.S. Department of Education Rescinds Biden Administration NIL guidance (Feb. 12, 2025)
The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) announced the rescission of the Title IX guidance on Name, Image, Likeness (NIL) issued by the Biden Administration. The Department found the former guidance to be “overly burdensome, profoundly unfair, and [ ] well beyond what agency guidance is intended to achieve” and further wrote that because Title IX says nothing about how revenue-generating athletics programs should allocate compensation among student athletes and that clear legal authority does not exist to support the guidance, it should be rescinded.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Gender Equity in Athletics | Students
Date:
2/12/2025
Tirrell and Turmelle v. Edelblut (D. N.H. Feb. 12, 2025)
Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs, transgender female high school student athletes, challenged a New Hampshire statute, HB 1205, claiming it violated Title IX because it discriminated on the basis of sex, when it defined “sex” as a student’s biological sex at birth and mandated that “[a]thletic teams or sports designated for females, women, or girls shall not be open to students of the male sex,” thereby excluding transgender females from participation in women’s sports. Plaintiffs also challenged the January 20, 2025, Executive Order, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” and the February 5, 2025, Executive Order, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” as facially discriminatory on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX, and as unconstitutional in violation of the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments and the separation of powers in Articles I and II of the U.S. Constitution.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Equity in Athletics | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination

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.