Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    ACE Letter to House and Senate Leaders re: Proposed Changes to FAFSA (May 22, 2024)

    Letter from the American Council on Education (ACE) and 35 other higher education associations to House and Senate leaders proposing changes to the FAFSA process. Noting the impact of the “debilitating FAFSA delays” this year, the letter urges Congress “to require, and make publicly available, a long-term assessment of how the FAFSA delays have impacted low-income and other students, as well as how it has impacted institutions,” and it urges Congress to require a similar comprehensive assessment of changes made to the need-analysis formula. The letter also makes specific proposals to ensure “that the FAFSA process is uninterrupted for the academic year (AY) 2025-2026 and beyond” and to improve the financial aid system. 

    Topics:

    Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Students

  • Date:

    NACUBO On Your Side (May 20, 2024)

    Summary from the National Association of College & University Business Officers on legislative and regulatory actions that occurred from May 14-20, 2024. This summary highlights examination in multiple House committees of federal funding and tax exemption for organizations with connection to antisemitic activities; research from the Hope Center at Temple University analyzing state policies affecting student eligibility for benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); and NACUBO’s advocacy through the Partnership to Protect Workplace Opportunity (PPWO) to encourage Congress to call for a delay in the effective date of the Department of Labor’s increase in the salary threshold for overtime exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act

  • Date:

    Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Cmty. Fin. Serv. Ass’n of Am., Ltd. (U.S. May 16, 2024)

    Opinion reversing the judgment of the Fifth Circuit. In this case, two trade associations representing payday lenders and credit-access businesses brought statutory and constitutional challenges to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s 2017 Payday Lending Rule, which regulates certain high-interest consumer loans. The district court granted summary judgment to the Bureau, but the Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that Congress exceeded its authority under the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution when it provided that the Bureau would draw its funding from the Federal Reserve System, subject to certain limits, rather than being subject to the political accountability of Congress’s regular appropriations process. After granting certiorari limited to the question of whether that funding mechanism violates the Appropriations Clause, the Supreme Court held that it does not. “Based on the Constitution’s text, the history against which that text was enacted, and congressional practice immediately following ratification,” the Court concluded that “appropriations need only identify a source of public funds and authorize the expenditure of those funds for designated purposes to satisfy the Appropriations Clause.”  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues

  • Date:

    Monge v. Univ. of Pa. (E.D. Pa. May 14, 2024)

    Memorandum denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former anthropology professor and museum curator at the University of Pennsylvania, brought defamation, false light, defamation by implication, and civil aiding and abetting claims against, among others, the University and its former president and provost in the wake of a public controversy surrounding her work with human remains from the 1985 police bombing of the MOVE house in Philadelphia. Plaintiff alleged that a former student, whom she had accused of “unlawful and disturbing” conduct, tried to “cancel” her by falsely reporting to University officials and the media that she had mishandled the remains. After media and professional associations condemned her, the University demoted her and issued a statement describing her actions as “insensitive, unprofessional, and unacceptable.” In permitting her defamation and false light claims to proceed, the court held, first, that plaintiff was a limited purpose public figure, noting her use of the remains in a Coursera course. It then found she had sufficiently pled actual malice, noting her assertions that defendants (1) had previously not acted when she reported the student’s conduct and (2) published the statement without an investigation by the Institutional Review Board. In permitting her defamation by implication claim to proceed, the court found it plausible that the defendants would have known that their statements would hurt her professional reputation. In permitting her civil aiding and abetting claim to proceed, it found her assertions sufficient to allege that the University defendants had acted in concert with the former student.  

    Topics:

    Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Research | Research Misconduct | Tort Litigation

  • Date:

    Contreras v. Heritage Univ. (9th Cir. May 10, 2024) (unpub.)

    Memorandum Opinion reversing summary judgment in favor of the University and remanding. Appellants, four former students in the physician assistant program at Heritage University, brought consumer protection, contract, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment claims against the University after the program lost accreditation five months into their two-year program, alleging that they had enrolled in the program in reliance on false statements that loss of accreditation would not adversely affect their education. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the University. In reversing and remanding on their Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA) claim, the Ninth Circuit found the consistency with which the University communicated that loss of accreditation would not interrupt their education or force them to transfer to a new program sufficient to show conduct affecting the public interest within the meaning of the CPA. Although appellants were aware of the program’s probationary status, the court also reversed and remanded on their contract and related claims, finding a genuine dispute as to whether it was reasonable for them to rely on the University’s statements regarding the potential consequences of a loss of accreditation. 

    Topics:

    Accreditation | Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Contracts

  • Date:

    Stannard v. State Ctr. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (E.D. Cal. May 10, 2024)

    Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, two professors at the State Center Community College District, brought First Amendment claims against the District after officials investigated complaints that they had made insensitive or offensive comments in faculty training sessions. In the first instance, District officials determined that a comment made in a “Justice and Healing Circle” during a race-sensitivity training that “children do better if they are raised with both biological parents” did not violate District policy. The second plaintiff received a written reprimand after he (1) entered “do-re-mi” by his name is a Zoom training after the presenter announced a preference for “they/them” nonbinary pronouns and then (2) when the presenter subsequently emailed saying that the apparent joke was perceived as offensive, used “Do,” “mi,” and “they” as pronouns in his reply accusing them of similarly disregarding his of choice of personal pronouns. In granting the District’s motion to dismiss, the court held that plaintiffs’ allegations of self-censorship were conclusory and insufficient to establish Article III standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief. Neither plaintiff sufficiently alleged that he had a concrete plan to violate District policy that was chilled. Though the second plaintiff’s reprimand was sufficient to show that the District might engage in future enforcement, his allegations failed to show how he had self-censored or that the District’s alleged unwritten pronoun policy remained in effect.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech

  • Date:

    Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High Sch. (4th Cir. May 8, 2024)

    Opinion reversing summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Appellee, a teacher of English and drama at Charlotte Catholic High School, brought a Title VII sex discrimination claim against the School after it terminated him for his plans to marry his same-sex partner. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee. In reviewing that judgment, the Fourth Circuit first relieved the School of its waiver of the ministerial exception below, noting that the district court had nevertheless ruled upon it, and found it preferrable to begin with that constitutional defense, rather than the School’s statutory defenses. The Fourth Circuit then held that the ministerial exception requires summary judgment in favor of the School, citing that (1) the School’s “educational mission is driven by the Catholic faith” and faith was expected to infuse even classes that are not expressly religious; (2) appellee did on some occasions fill in for teachers of expressly religious classes; and (3) the School was permitted to expect appellee, as a teacher, to model its religious values, even if that expectation might not extend to all employees.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination

  • Date:

    U.S. Dep’t of Education DCL on Financial Responsibility, Administrative Capability, Certification Procedures, Ability to Benefit (May 16, 2024)

    U.S. Department of Education Office of Federal Student Aid Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) on the Implementation of Regulations Related to Financial Responsibility, Administrative Capability, Certification Procedures, and Ability to Benefit (ATB). The DCL provides a summary of the regulatory changes that the Department announced in its final rule on October 31, 2023, which will become effective on July 1, 2024.  

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Students

  • Date:

    NACUBO On Your Side (May 13, 2024)

    Summary from the National Association of College & University Business Officers on legislative and regulatory actions that occurred from May 7-13, 2024. This summary highlights the Dear Colleague Letter from the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) on ensuring nondiscrimination under Title VI; research from the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) finding increased appropriations in fiscal year 2023 but decreased enrollment at public institutions; NACUBO’s advocacy with House and Senate committees to expand the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) Matching Program in the Internal Revenue Code; and NACUBO’s advocacy as a part of the Partnership to Protect Workplace Opportunity with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) requesting an extension to the implementation date for the new final rule raising the salary threshold for the overtime exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act

  • Date:

    Warner Chappell Music, LLC v. Nealy (U.S. May 9, 2024)

    Opinion affirming the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit. The underlying dispute concerns songs recorded and released by Sherman Nealy and Tony Butler through Music Specialist, Inc., which they formed in 1983. Nealy later served prison terms from 1989 to 2008 and 2012 to 2015. In the interim, Butler entered an agreement with Warner Chappell Music, LLC to license songs from the Music Specialist catalogue, including for projects that proved commercially successful. In 2018, within three years of when he discovered the infringement, Nealy and Music Specialist, Inc. sued Warner Chappell for the infringement that had begun more than ten years earlier. The district court permitted Nealy to proceed on the infringement claims, but it limited recovery of monetary damages to the three years immediately prior to filing the action. On interlocutory appeal limited to the question of the limitation on recovery, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, assuming without deciding that Nealy’s claims were otherwise timely under the discovery rule. The U.S. Supreme Court, also assuming without deciding that the discovery rule permitted Nealy’s infringement claims to proceed, affirmed, finding that the Copyright Act provides only a single limitation for a plaintiff to file suit “within three years after the claim accrued” and “contains no separate time-based limit on monetary recovery.”  

    Topics:

    Copyright & Fair Use | Intellectual Property

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