New Cases and Developments

NACUA's Legal Resources staff summarizes current higher education cases and developments and provides the full text of selected cases to members. New cases and developments are archived here for up to 12 months.  Cases provided by Fastcase, Inc.

New Search
Authorizations & Regulations; Antitrust

NACAC Statement Regarding Cooperation with DOJ Inquiry (Jan. 10, 2018)

Statement from the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) regarding its cooperation with an inquiry from the Department of Justice (DOJ).  The DOJ inquiry appears to concern various provisions in NACAC’s Code of Ethics and Professional Practice. DOJ has requested documents from the association and steering committee members, apparently to ascertain whether any provisions in the Code of Ethics amount to an unlawful restraint on trade.  NACAC has indicated that it is “cooperating with the Justice Department and remain confident in the values that underpin SPGP: NACAC’s Code of Ethics and Professional Practice and its mission to serve students and our fellow professionals.”

Authorizations & Regulations; Antitrust

In re: National Collegiate Athletic Association Athletic Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Ca., Aug. 5, 2016)

In this consolidated action, Plaintiff student-athletes who played Division I football and basketball between March 5, 2014 and the present filed suit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and a group of Division I conferences, alleging that Defendants conspired to impose a cap on the amount of grant-in-aid compensation that student-athletes may receive, in violation of federal antitrust law. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, seeking an order dismissing Jenkins v. NCAA in its entirety and dismissing the portion of the consolidated action that seeks injunctive relief. The Court denied the motion, finding that the Ninth Circuit's ruling in O'Bannon v. NCAA—that “offering [student-athletes] cash sums untethered to educational expenses" was not a less restrictive alternative to the NCAA's current rules under the rule of reason—does not foreclose Plaintiffs' challenge to the NCAA's current rules.