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
Foreign Students; Immigration & International Activities; Government Relations; Authorizations & Regulations

Statement by ACE President Ted Mitchell About Bipartisan Congressional Efforts to Protect Dreamers (Jan. 18, 2018)

Statement by the President of the American Council on Education (ACE) expressing strong support for a bipartisan, legislative solution by congressional leaders to protect individuals affected by the President’s rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The statement provides, “[i]t is of paramount importance to keep the door open in this country to an entire generation of young people who seek only to contribute their best to the United States, the only country they have ever called home.” ​

Foreign Students; Immigration & International Activities; Constitutional Issues

County of Santa Clara and County of San Francisco v. Trump, et al. (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017)

Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and permanently enjoining Defendants from enforcing Section 9(a) of Executive Order 13768, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” (EO). Plaintiffs, the County of Santa Clara and County of San Francisco, brought independent suits challenging the constitutionality of Section 9(a) of the EO, which conditions federal funding on compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373 and deems any state or local government that declares itself to be a “sanctuary jurisdiction” ineligible for federal grants.  The court found that the EO violated the separation of powers doctrine, specifically because it infringed upon Congress’ exclusive spending power; exceeded the federal government’s spending power under the Tenth Amendment and also violated the Amendment’s prohibition against commandeering states to enforce federal law; violated the Fifth Amendment for constitutional vagueness and failure to provide clear standards to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement; and abridged the Fifth Amendment right of procedural due process. 

Immigration & International Activities; Employment; Foreign Students

Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, et al. v. Trump (D. Md. October 17, 2017)

Memorandum and Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, consisting of twenty-three individuals and seven organizations, challenged the President’s Proclamation 9645, which indefinitely barred the entry into the United States of foreign nationals from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Venezuela, because of identified security inadequacies related to terrorism and other public-safety threats. The court found that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that the Proclamation violates the Establishment Clause and section 1152(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which bars discrimination on the basis of nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas.  Regarding Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim, although the court noted that “past actions do not ‘forever taint’ present ones,” it was not persuaded that the third iteration of the travel ban cured previous constitutional violations by evidencing “rejection of the President’s prior calls for a Muslim ban.” Furthermore, the court found Plaintiffs established a likelihood of irreparable harm, that the balance of equities weighed in favor of the Plaintiffs, and the injunction would further the public interest of preventing discrimination and constitutional violations. The injunction is limited to barring enforcement against individuals “who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States” and will not apply to travelers from Venezuela or North Korea.

Foreign Students; Employment; Immigration & International Activities

Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project Summary Disposition (U.S. October 10, 2017)

Order vacating and remanding Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project to the U.S. Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit to dismiss as moot. The Court found that the provisions of Executive Order No. 13,780 had “expired on its own terms” on September 24, 2017, and therefore, the case no longer presented a live case or controversy. 

Foreign Students; Immigration & International Activities

American Council on Education Publishes Web Resource on Dreamers and Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals (October 2017)

The American Council on Education (ACE) has published a web page resource entitled, Protect Dreamers Higher Education Coalition, that contains materials related to the Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The Department of Homeland Security recently rescinded policies of the DACA program, which granted certain individuals unlawfully present in the United States a formal reprieve from deportation. The ACE publication provides resources that campuses may find helpful in discussing this issue, such as an overview of term distinctions between Dreamers and DACA recipients, information on the economic impact of the DACA program rescission, and additional resources for members of the higher education community who wish to advocate on behalf of affected individuals. 

Foreign Students; Immigration & International Activities

Dalgic v. Misericordia University (M.D. Pa. September 29, 2017)

Memorandum denying Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff, a Turkish national enrolled in Misericordia University’s Doctor of Physical Therapy Degree Program, alleged negligence and negligent interference with prospective contractual relations after Defendant prematurely filed a required recommendation for Plaintiff’s application for Optional Practice Training (OPT)–a program that would have extended the duration of his F-1 visa so that he could complete post-graduate employment in the U.S. Defendant argued that negligent interference was not a cognizable claim in Pennsylvania, Plaintiff was the proximate cause for the denial of his OPT application, and Plaintiff’s claims were time barred. The court found that Pennsylvania recognized claims of negligent interference where a special relationship exists between the parties and here, such a relationship was plausible. The court also found that Plaintiff plead sufficient facts to suggest that Defendant’s acts were the proximate cause of his injuries and that his claims were not time barred.

Foreign Students; Immigration & International Activities

Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the U.S. by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats (September 24, 2017)

Proclamation by the President imposing certain conditional restrictions and limitations on the entry into the U.S. of foreign nationals from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and government officials from Venezuela. The Presidential Proclamation takes effect immediately for those persons lacking a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the U.S. and already subject to certain restrictions under Executive Order 13780, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.  Remaining aspects of the President’s Proclamation take effect October 18, 2017. 

Foreign Students; Employment; Immigration & International Activities

Amicus Brief in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project (September 18, 2017)

Amicus brief by the American Council on Education and twenty-nine other higher education associations to the Supreme Court in the United States for the case Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project. At issue is whether Executive Order No. 13,780, which temporarily restricted foreign nationals and refugees from certain countries and refugees from entering the United States, violated the Establishment Clause and if the global injunction it enacted was impermissibly overbroad. The amicus brief outlines the “serious negative effects that the [Executive Order] will have on American institutions of higher education.” Amici argue that students, professors, and researchers must be able to travel domestically or abroad, without impediment;  otherwise, U.S. colleges and universities “will struggle to maintain the level of talent and experience that makes the United States the world leader in higher education and research development.”