Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Initial Rescissions Of Harmful Executive Orders And Actions – The White House (Jan. 20, 2025)

    Executive Order: Initial Rescission of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions. This Executive Order revokes dozens of Executive Orders from the prior Administration, including but not limited to: Executive Order 14124 (White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity Through Hispanic-Serving Institutions); Executive Order 14110 (Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence); Executive Order 14087 (Lowering Prescription Drug Costs for Americans); Executive Order 14050 (White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Black Americans); Executive Order 14049 (White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Native Americans and Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities); Executive Order 14045 (White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Hispanics); and Executive Order 14041 (Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free From Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity). 

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    New Jersey v. Donald J. Trump (D. MA Jan. 21, 2025)

    Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, 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: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship (the Order) and actions taken by defendant agencies to implement or enforce the Order would effectively violate the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs allege the Order expressly violates Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the guarantee of birthright citizenship to all individuals born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Plaintiffs reason the President has no authority to override or ignore the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause or otherwise amend the Constitution unilaterally. Plaintiffs further argue by way of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) that “the Citizenship Clause contains no exceptions based on the citizenship or immigration status of one’s parent(s). Rather, the Citizenship Clause’s only requirements are that an individual be born ‘in the United States’ and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’” Additionally, plaintiffs cite to the Office of Legal Counsel from a statement to Congress in 1995 stating that proposed legislation that would deny citizenship to certain children born in the United States based on their parents’ immigration or citizenship status would be “unquestionably unconstitutional.” If the Order were to go into effect, plaintiffs contend it would deny over one hundred and fifty thousand children nationwide of their birthright to citizenship over the course of a year. Plaintiffs argue that the President has no authority to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment or duly enacted statute. Nor is he empowered by any other source of law to limit who receives United States citizenship at birth; as such Plaintiffs ask the Court to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from enforcing the Order.  

    Topics:

    Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Students

  • Date:

    New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Donald J. Trump (D.N.H Jan. 20, 2025)

    Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, several organizations with members impacted by Executive Order: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship (the Order), allege that defendants Donald J. Trump, President of
    the United States, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Department of State (DOS), Secretary of State, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are violating the Citizenship Clause,
    as well as the Birthright Citizenship Statute and request that the Order be enjoined. The Order denies citizenship to children born on American soil to a mother who is unlawfully present or temporarily present, and a father who is not a U.S. citizen
    or lawful permanent resident. Plaintiffs allege that “by attempting to limit the right to birthright citizenship, the Order exceeds the President’s authority and runs afoul of the Constitution and federal statute.” Plaintiffs
    contend the Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause by way of denying citizenship to the children of noncitizens who are born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Plaintiffs go on
    to state that “once deemed to be non-citizens, the children of plaintiffs’ members and other similarly situated children will be subject to immigration enforcement by DHS, CBP, and ICE. This may include arrest, detention, and deportation to countries they have never even visited.” Plaintiffs rely on United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), as well the codified language from Congress re Birthright Citizenship in statute 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a). Finally, plaintiffs are asking the Court to declare the Order unconstitutional and unlawful in
    its entirety, and preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from enforcing the Order. 

    Topics:

    Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Students

  • Date:

    Young Americans for Freedom v. U.S. Department of Education (E.D.N.D. Dec. 31, 2024)

    Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, two organizations, the Young America’s Foundation and Young Americans for Freedom, along with two individual students sought an injunction (1) prohibiting the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) “from enforcing or otherwise implementing the racial and ethnic classifications in [the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program (the Program)]” and (2) requiring the Department to notify universities participating in the Program that they cannot impose or rely on racial and ethnic classifications. Plaintiffs allege the Department’s underrepresented race criteria for the Program is unlawful under the Equal Protection Clause and such racial eligibility requirement “is a harm to [their] personal dignity.” While individual Plaintiffs both wished to apply to the Program, they ultimately chose not to because of their race (white) and lack of low-income or first-generation college student status. In finding that plaintiffs lack standing, the Court determined that plaintiffs’ alleged injury for “the denial of equal treatment” in the application and admission process will not be redressed by any injunction against the Department because the higher education institutions are also part of the administration of the Program. The Department awards institutions five-year grants to administer the Program on their campuses, and once funding is distributed, it is up to the institutions – not the Department – to select applicants. Because “there is nothing in the record that indicates the Department has any control over the grants once allocated to the institutions” and since institutions would not be bound by the Court’s order, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for Preliminary Injunction and dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Equal Protection | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Students

  • Date:

    U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Publishes New Resource on 2024 ADA Title II Web and Mobile App Accessibility Rule (Jan. 8, 2025)

    The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Disability Rights Section published a new resource that contains suggested action steps that Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinators and others working with state and local governments may take to ensure their website content and mobile apps comply with the Title II Web and Mobile App Accessibility Rule. In addition to the action steps resource provided, a  Fact Sheet is also available to provide a basic introduction to the rule. Institutions are expected to comply beginning April 2026 and April 2027, depending on population size. 

    Topics:

    Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Technology | Technology Accessibility

  • Date:

    Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS); International Students; Background Checks & Employee Verification: Laken Riley Act Passed Congress (Jan. 23, 2025)

    The 119th U.S. Congress passed S. 5, the “Laken Riley Act” (the Bill) which requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain certain non-U.S. nationals who have been arrested for burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. Additionally, the Bill would authorize states to sue the federal government for decisions or alleged failures related to immigration enforcement. President Donald J. Trump is expected to sign the Bill. 

    Topics:

    Background Checks & Employee Verification | Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Students

  • Date:

    American Association of University professors Statement Against Anticipatory Obedience (Jan. 23, 2025)

    The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Statement Against Anticipatory Obedience. The AAUP issued a joint statement from the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure and the Committee on College and University Governance regarding how the new administration and many state governments appear “poised to accelerate attacks on academic freedom, shared governance, and higher education as a public good.” The Statement encourages its members that under no circumstances should an institution go further than the law demands, but cautioning that “too often, administrators do.” The Statement encourages AAUP chapters, conferences, unions, and faculty senates to (1) review handbooks and contracts to strengthen faculty rights in the areas of curricular reform and course approval; (2) review and reform policies to strengthen faculty oversight; (3) organize locally, regionally, and nationally; (4) strengthen local capacity to protect tenure and academic freedom by establishing or staffing a Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure in every chapter and state conference; and (5)   Strengthen local capacity to protect faculty governance by promoting AAUP resources on governance, including the Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, within chapters, to faculty senates, and across institutions. 

    Topics:

    Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Faculty & Staff

  • Date:

    E.M.S. Sales Inc. v. Carrera (Jan. 15, 2025)

    Opinion and Order Reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals and Remanding. Sales representatives of petitioner, a distributor of food products, sued the company alleging it failed to pay them overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The District Court applied a heightened “clear and convincing evidence” standard to the company’s argument that the sales representatives fell within the FLSA’s outside-salesman exemption. On appeal, the company argued the District Court should have applied the less stringent “preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.” The Fourth Circuit disagreed and affirmed judgment in favor of the sales representatives. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider which standard applies when an employer seeks to demonstrate that “an employee is exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime-pay provisions of the FLSA.” In concluding that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies, the Court reasoned that a heightened standard is only required in civil cases when either the U.S. Constitution or a statute establishes the requirement, or in rare “uncommon” cases when the government undertakes “unusual coercive action” such as removal of an individual’s citizenship. The Court found that (1) the FLSA is silent as to a standard of proof for exemptions, (2) the Fourth Circuit is alone in requiring employers to prove the applicability of FLSA exemptions by the clear and convincing standard, and (3) it previously applied a preponderance standard in Title VII employment-discrimination cases. Therefore, the Court held that “the default preponderance standard governs when an employer seeks to prove that an employee is exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act.”  

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Ohio Telecom Association v. Federal Communications Commission (6th Cir. Jan. 2, 2025)

    Opinion granting petitions for review and setting aside Safeguarding Order. Plaintiff, a statewide trade association that represents the common interests of telecommunication companies in Ohio, challenged the Federal Communications Commission’s
    (FCC) statutory authority under Title II of the Communications Act to impose net-neutrality principles via its issuance of the Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order (the Order). The Order defined mobile broadband and private mobile
    services as telecommunications services, which are subject to Title II common carrier restrictions, rather than as information services. Relying on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Sixth Circuit overruled prior decisions granting Chevron
    deference to FCC opinions and found that “mobile broadband does not qualify as ‘commercial mobile service’ … and therefore may not be regulated as a common carrier.
    In issuing its decision to set aside the Order – which effectively ends the FCC’s authority to impose net neutrality restrictions on internet service providers – the Sixth Circuit reasoned that “[f]or almost 20 years after
    Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act, the FCC’s position was that companies providing access to the Internet offered information—not telecommunications—services.”  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech | Social Media | Technology | Technology Accessibility

  • Date:

    Williams v. Alabama State University (11th Cir. Dec. 23, 2024)

    Opinion affirming the District Court’s Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, the former Athletic Director at Alabama State University sued the University alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act (EPA), the Clarke-Figures Equal Pay Act (CFEPA), and Title IX after learning that upon her resignation, the University gave her replacement a larger salary by a difference of $35,000. Plaintiff contends that the pay difference between her and the new Athletic Director was due to her sex. The University made an affirmative defense arguing the new salary was based on the candidate’s extensive leadership, management experience, and education; further noting that the candidate came in with thirteen years of experience compared to plaintiff’s two years of experience. Upon a de novo review, the Eleventh Circuit found the University’s affirmative defense sufficient and affirmed the grant of summary judgment on plaintiff’s EPA and CFEPA claims, reasoning that “[the candidate’s] higher education levels and many years of leadership posts and management experience are legitimate business reasons to justify a higher salary.” In affirming disposition of plaintiff’s Title IX claims, the Court applied Joseph v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (11th Cir. 2024), to conclude that Title IX does not extend to “claims of sex discrimination for employees of educational institutions.”  

    Topics:

    Compensation & Benefits | 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