Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Urgent National Action to Save College Sports – The White House (Apr. 3, 2026)

    Executive Order: “Urgent National Action to Save College Sports.” This Order directs federal agencies, beginning August 1, 2026, to evaluate whether universities that violate key athletics rules, particularly around pay-for-play (including NIL arrangements), transfer policies, and eligibility limits, should remain eligible for federal funding, while also encouraging national governing bodies to adopt standardized rules such as a five-year participation window, structured transfer limits, and protections against improper financial inducements and agent misconduct. The order emphasizes preserving the financial viability of non-revenue programs, especially women’s and Olympic sports, amid what it characterizes as a “chaotic” system driven by court rulings and inconsistent state laws, and calls on Congress to enact comprehensive legislation to provide long-term stability. The Order further directs the Administrator of General Services and the Department of Education to increase data collection across college athletics to ensure compliance. The White House also issued a Fact Sheet with the Order.

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Athletics Operations | Gender Equity in Athletics | Student Athlete Issues | Students

  • Date:

    Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Education (D. Mass. Apr. 3, 2026)

    Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, a coalition of states, sued the Department of Education alleging that the Department’s new Admissions Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) survey is contrary to law, exceeds the Department’s statutory authority, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court held that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their APA arbitrary and capricious claim, finding that the Department “changed its historical position, and rejected multiple comments expressing concern, solely in order to achieve an arbitrary and unexplained deadline.” The court noted the Department’s failure to consider alternatives such as phased implementation or pilot testing was further evidence of the arbitrary and capricious nature of the agency’s action. The court also found that plaintiffs had demonstrated they would face irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction was not granted, given the significant administrative burdens and potential enforcement risks. The preliminary injunction blocks the Department from enforcing the reporting requirements against public institutions within the 17 plaintiff states.

    Topics:

    Admissions | Students

  • Date:

    U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, et al. (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2026)

    Memorandum Opinion Granting Plaintiff’s Application for Enforcement. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as part of its investigation into possible discrimination against Jewish employees at the University of Pennsylvania, sued the university seeking to enforce a subpoena that sought, among other things, lists of school groups and organizations “related to the Jewish religion,” including personal contact information for Penn employees in those groups. The court found that while “ineptly worded,” the EEOC’s request had an “understandable purpose.” The court rejected the university’s argument that the subpoena infringed on affected employees’ substantive due process right to informational privacy, determining that home addresses, phone numbers, and participation in campus groups did not rise to the level of “highly personal” non-public facts. The court also found that the university failed to demonstrate how disclosure would create a “serious safety risk,” and provided little evidence as to how enforcement of the subpoena would chill the affected employees’ ability to associate. The court concluded that the EEOC’s charge was valid and ordered the university to comply with the subpoena, while noting the parties agreed upon stipulation that the university need not disclose employees’ specific affiliations with particular Jewish organizations. The university intends to appeal the decision.

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Court Grants Joint Parties’ Stipulation in Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ. v. Dep’t of Educ. (Mar. 31, 2026)

    The California State University System (CSU) sued the Department of Education challenging its January 2026 determination that San Jose State University (SJSU) violated Title IX when it allowed a transgender athlete to compete on the women’s volleyball team from 2022-2024. After reviewing the joint stipulation from the parties, the court entered an order setting out how the case will be managed going forward. The order stipulates that within two business days of any determination by the Department that it intends to withhold funds or take other action against SJSU or CSU, the parties will provide the court with a proposed briefing and hearing schedule. CSU agrees to maintain existing policies and not treat the stipulation as a concession on the merits. The order protects CSU from immediate enforcement consequences, particularly the risk to federal funding, while allowing the court to later resolve CSU’s claims that the Department’s actions were unlawful, retroactive, and constitutionally impermissible.

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Equity in Athletics | Sex Discrimination | Sexual Misconduct | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    AAU Comments on GSA Information Collection Request (Mar. 30, 2026)

    The Association of American Universities (AAU) submitted comments to the General Services Administration (GSA) regarding its proposed revisions to the System for Award Management (SAM) Registration Requirements for Financial Assistance Recipients, urging GSA to withdraw the proposed certification revisions. AAU raises concern with the fact that the proposed certification would require institutions to certify compliance with standards that are not yet settled law or endorsed by the courts and notes that universities already certify compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws through existing SAM and grant application processes. The letter also raises concern that the proposal could chill lawful diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) activities, impose substantial administrative and legal burdens, and centralize enforcement risk in a way that may expose institutions to heightened liability. AAU also stresses that before any certification requirement is finalized, the GSA must, at a minimum (1) define the key terms in plain language; (2) provide concrete examples of covered and non-covered institutional activities; and (3) establish a process by which institutions can seek binding guidance on whether specific programs comply with the certification’s requirements. The letter concludes by requesting that the GSA withdraw the proposed revised information collection requirement or extend the public comment period by at least 180 days, and engage in direct consultation with the higher education community before any revised certification text is published. 

    Topics:

    Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Research

  • Date:

    United States v. Minnesota (D. Minn. Mar. 27, 2026)

    Opinion and Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, the United States, sued the state of Minnesota and the Minnesota Office of Higher Education, alleging that Minnesota’s in-state tuition law violates section 1623 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which prohibits in-state tuition benefits for individuals who are not “lawfully present” in the United States, “on the basis of residence within a State,” unless a citizen is eligible for the same benefit without regard to state residency. The court held that, because Minnesota’s law allows a student to qualify for in-state tuition even if “their principal actual dwelling place is outside of Minnesota,” the law “[did] not determine eligibility . . . on the basis of residence,” and therefore was not preempted by IIRIRA. The court dismissed the government’s claims with prejudice.

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors – The White House (Mar. 26, 2026)

    Executive Order: “Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors.” This Order directs all executive departments and agencies, within 30 days, to include in all contracts, to the extent permitted by law, a clause stating that the contractor agrees that it will not engage in any racially discriminatory DEI activities, defined broadly to include “disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity in the recruitment, employment (e.g., hiring, promotions), contracting (e.g. vendor agreements), program participation, or allocation or deployment of an entity’s resources.” The contractor must also agree that (1) it will furnish all information and reports, including providing access to books, records and accounts to the contracting agency for purposes of assuring compliance with these requirements and (2) that the contractor recognizes that compliance with the requirements of this clause are material to the government’s payment decisions for purposes of the False Claims Act. The Order directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue guidance to contracting agencies to ensure compliance with the Order, including identifying economic sectors that pose a particular risk of engaging in discriminatory DEI activities, and directs the Attorney General to prioritize potential claims under the False Claims Act. The White House also published a Fact Sheet on the Order.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    Newman v. Howard Univ. School of Law, et al. (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2026)

    Opinion Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a white former law student at Howard University proceeding pro se, sued the university, law school dean, and several administrators for breach of contract and defamation, alleging administrators lowered his grades, took away his scholarship, and subjected him to a “smear campaign,” after he sent provocative and racially charged messages to classmates and was expelled. The court granted summary judgment for the university on plaintiff’s contract claims, finding no evidence that the university lowered his grades or class ranking and concluding that the loss of plaintiff’s scholarship resulted from his failure to meet its conditions. The court also granted summary judgment for the university on one of plaintiff’s defamation claims, concluding the dean’s statement that plaintiff harassed her and other students was a fair characterization in light of complaints from several students. However, the court allowed plaintiff’s remaining defamation claims to proceed, finding a reasonable jury could infer the dean’s statements, including one accusing plaintiff of saying “African Americans suffer from hive mind,” were made with malice given her prior frustration with plaintiff and her decision to initiate charges on behalf of unnamed students.

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Students

  • Date:

    Massachusetts, et al. v. Department of Education, et al. (D. Mass. Mar. 24, 2026)

    Temporary Restraining Order Extending Deadline. Plaintiffs, a coalition of states, sued the Department of Education challenging the new Admissions Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) survey, alleging that the survey’s reporting requirements are contrary to law, exceed the Department’s statutory authority, and violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). On March 13, plaintiffs’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was granted, extending the deadline for all institutions impacted by the Department’s actions from March 18 to March 25. Following the March 24 hearing on plaintiffs’ motion, the judge has now extended the TRO to April 6, however, the extension is only applicable to public institutions in the 17 plaintiff states. All other impacted institutions are still bound by the March 25 deadline. The judge plans to issue any preliminary injunction decision by ⁠April ​3.

    Topics:

    Admissions | Students

  • Date:

    Department of Education Issues Letter of Impending Enforcement to San Jose State University on Title IX Compliance (Mar. 24, 2026)

    The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that it has issued a Letter of Impending Enforcement Action to San Jose State University (SJSU) for its alleged “ongoing refusal to comply with Title IX.” This action follows OCR’s January 2026 findings that the university’s policies “allowing males to compete in women’s sports and access female-only facilities deny women equal educational opportunities and benefits.” According to the press release, OCR submitted a proposed resolution agreement to SJSU, which “the institution refused to sign [] or attempt to negotiate its terms . . . .”  OCR has given the university 10 calendar days to come into compliance or face enforcement action, including referral to the Department of Justice and possible termination of federal funding.

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Gender Equity in Athletics

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