Thompson Coburn's Higher Education Litigation Summary is your resource for legal updates on key rulings and ongoing cases shaping the higher education sector. This installment covers updates related to Gainful Employment, the Bare Minimum Rule, BDR, Student Loan Forgiveness, Title IX, False Claims Act, Nonprofit Institution Status, Federal Funding Freeze, DEI Executive Orders, the Executive Order Directing the Closure of ED, Grant Terminations, Student and Exchange Visitor Program Litigation, and the Legality of Nationwide Injunctions.
This edition highlights key developments related to grant termination, the bare minimum rule, ongoing litigation over the Dear Colleague letter, and the Disparate Impact Executive Order.
Gainful Employment
Overview
In October 2023, the U.S. Department of Education ("ED") published a new Gainful Employment Rule ("GE Rule"). The GE Rule sets forth complex debt and earnings metrics that ED uses to measure whether programs are preparing students for "gainful employment in a recognized profession" under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended ("HEA"). 20 U.S.C. §§ 1088(b)(1)(A)(i); 1002(b)(1)-(2), (c)(1)-(2). Programs failing the metrics risk losing Title IV eligibility.
Prior to its July 1, 2024, effective date, two lawsuits from the cosmetology school community challenged the GE Rule. American Association of Cosmetology Schools v. U.S. Dep't of Ed., No. 23-cv-01267 (N.D. Tex.); Ogle School Management v. U.S. Dep't of Ed., No. 24-cv-00259 (N.D. Tex.). Plaintiffs in both cases argued the GE Rule was unlawful because Congress's definition of "gainful employment" in the HEA did not contemplate ED using debt and earnings metrics. They argued the GE Rule was therefore in "excess" of ED's authority and was "arbitrary and capricious," in violation of the federal Administrative Procedure Act ("APA").
The Ogle School plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the GE Rule from becoming effective, but the Northern District of Texas denied the motion in June 2024. The court held that the GE Rule likely did not clearly violate the statutory definition of "gainful employment," and further, was not arbitrary and capricious. Significantly, the court ruled just days before the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Loper Bright overturning the Chevron deference doctrine. The Ogle School plaintiffs did not appeal the ruling denying its injunction motion. The two lawsuits were then consolidated in July 2024.
Current Status of Litigation
In September 2024, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. But in February 2025, after President Trump assumed office, ED asked the court for a 90-day stay of the litigation "to allow the new Administration to become familiar with and evaluate [its] position regarding the issues in this case." The court granted the motion and extended the remaining summary judgment briefing deadlines through May 16, 2025 (or four days after the stay is terminated, if the stay is modified). ED has also postponed GE reporting requirements until September 30, 2025.
On May 16, 2025, in a surprising turn of events, ED filed a reply in support of its summary judgment that revealed its intent to defend the Biden-era GE Rule—notwithstanding that the first Trump administration stripped a very similar rule from the books in 2019. ED's reply brief specifically defended both the financial value transparency framework, which applies to all Title IV-participating programs at all Title IV-participating institutions of higher education, and the gainful employment framework, which applies solely to "gainful employment" programs (non-degree programs at private, non-profit and public institutions, and all programs at proprietary institutions). A more detailed analysis of ED's filing is available here. On June 20, 2025, the plaintiffs requested oral argument on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment.
In considering the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, the district court is likely to revisit its prior analysis of the GE Rule under the new Loper Bright standard. Specifically, the court is expected to scrutinize the GE Rule to determine whether ED's interpretation of "gainful employment" in the HEA as permitting the use of debt and earnings metrics is the "best" under the statute's plain meaning, rather than whether it "so clearly contradicts" the statutory definition.
Bare Minimum Rule
Overview
In October 2023, as part of a broader final rulemaking, ED promulgated the so-called "Bare Minimum Rule." Effective July 1, 2024, the Bare Minimum Rule restricted Title IV aid to GE programs that required the minimum hours a state mandates for licensure in a given field. If a program's length exceeded the state's minimum hours, students are ineligible for Title IV aid for that program. The Bare Minimum Rule departed from a prior "150% Rule" under which ED previously restricted Title IV aid to GE programs that did not exceed 150% of a state's minimum hours. Two lawsuits were filed challenging the Bare Minimum Rule under the APA: 360 Degrees Education, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Ed., No. 24-cv-00508 (N.D. Tex.); American Massage Therapy Association v. U.S. Dep't of Ed., No. 24-cv-01670 (D.D.C.).
Current Status of Litigation
In 360 Degrees Education, the Northern District of Texas granted the plaintiffs' motion and entered a nationwide injunction on June 21, 2024. The court held that the Bare Minimum Rule was likely "arbitrary and capricious," emphasizing that it "represents a sea-change from thirty years of established practice." The next month, ED announced that it would revert to enforcing its prior program hour length requirements (under the 150% Rule) while the injunction remained in place.
Later, in December 2024, ED initiated an administrative proceeding to terminate one of the plaintiffs' Title IV eligibility. After President Trump assumed office, both the administrative proceeding and the lawsuit were stayed. Recently, however, ED dismissed the administrative proceeding. It is expected that the lawsuit will now resume. The Bare Minimum Rule remains enjoined at this time.
Meanwhile, in American Massage Therapy, plaintiffs AMTA and ED filed cross motions for summary judgment in November 2024. However, the case has been stayed since February 2025. ED has asked the court for a stay so that it could "consider its position regarding [the] case and the underlying rule at issue."
On July 21, 2025, the parties filed a joint status report. ED stated that they intend to reconsider the challenged rule in negotiated rulemaking this year, and therefore, request the case be stayed through January 21, 2026. Plaintiffs AMTA consented, without prejudice to its right to seek to lift the stay in the action and/or to move for preliminary relief in the event that the case or inunction in 360 Degrees Education is terminated.
On July 22, 2025, the Court ordered that the case remain stayed until January 21, 2026, and ordered the parties to submit a joint status report by January 21, 2026.
On August 13, 2025, the parties requested that the Court maintain the current stay, pending resolution of the DE's anticipated rulemaking procedures. For now, the BMR is subject to ongoing legal processes and it will not be implemented in its current form. The fate of the BMR will likely involve one or more of the following actions:
- The ED could reconsider the rule through a new negotiated rulemaking process, the outcome which would likely revolve the ongoing lawsuit.
- The Trump administration could choose to withdraw its defense and formally appeal the rule.
Congressional legislation could formally nullify the rule and reinstate the 150% rule.
Borrower Defense to Repayment
2022 BDR Rule
Overview
In November 2022, ED published a final Borrower Defense to Repayment Rule ("2022 BDR Rule"). The 2022 BDR Rule, pursuant to the HEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1087e(h), created a new adjudication system that provided for ED's assessment of borrower defenses to repayment in administrative proceedings before the borrower's default, and further, permitted for ED's assessment of similarly-situated borrowers' defenses on a group basis. The 2022 BDR Rule also established, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1087(c), new closed-school loan discharge provisions.
In February 2023, Career Colleges & Schools of Texas ("CCST") sued to challenge the 2022 BDR Rule's borrower defense adjudication and closed-school loan discharge provisions. Career Coll. & Schs. of Texas v. U.S. Dep't of Ed., No. 23-cv-00433 (W.D. Tex.), No. 23-50491 (5th Cir.), No. 24-413 (U.S.). The district court denied CCST's motion for a preliminary injunction, but the Fifth Circuit reversed in April 2024 and enjoined the challenged provisions on a nationwide basis.
Current Status of Litigation
In October 2024, ED petitioned the Supreme Court to review only the following two issues: (1) whether the Fifth Circuit erred in holding that the HEA does not permit ED's assessment of borrower defenses to repayment before default in administrative proceedings, and that the HEA does not permit such assessment on a group basis; and (2) whether the Fifth Circuit erred in ordering a nationwide injunction against the challenged provisions. In January 2025, the Supreme Court granted the petition but only on the first question presented—not on the propriety of a nationwide injunction. On January 24, 2025, ED filed a motion to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance "to allow for the Department to reassess the basis for and soundness of the borrower defense regulations." The Supreme Court granted the motion on February 6, 2025.
On May 29, 2025, ED moved to resume briefing, explaining that it intended to defend the 2022 BDR Rule and would argue that the Fifth Circuit erred on the first issue presented. On June 23, 2025, the Supreme Court granted ED's motion to resume merits briefing. On July 2, 2025, ED filed a motion to extend the date to file its merits brief to August 20, 2025.
On August 8, 2025, the parties dismissed the case pursuant to Rule 46, in light of the passage of Section 85001 of the OBBB, stating that the borrower defense provisions of the rule at issue in this case "shall not be in effect" for loans that originate before July 1, 2035, and providing that the regulations that were in effect on July 1, 2020, are restored. On August 11, 2025, the Supreme Court affirmed dismissal pursuant to Rule 46.
2016 BDR Rule
Overview
In a separate case related to BDR, students sued ED for failing to process borrower defense claims under the 2016 BDR Rule. Sweet v. Cardona, No. 19-cv-3674(N.D. Cal.), No. 23-15049 (9th Cir.). The 2016 BDR Rule, which set standards for student borrowers to assert claims based on institutional misconduct, faced delays after ED, under the first Trump administration, paused adjudication of claims. In June 2022, a settlement was reached between ED and a class of students, resulting in $6 billion in debt discharges for students who attended 151 schools that were identified as having likely engaged in substantial misconduct. Four schools opposed the settlement, but the court approved it, finding that ED had statutory authority to settle the students' claims under 20 U.S.C. § 1082(a).
Current Status of Litigation
Three of the four schools appealed the settlement approval order, but in November 2024, the Ninth Circuit dismissed their appeal, ruling the schools lacked prudential standing. In December 2024, one of the appealing schools, Everglades College, petitioned the Ninth Circuit for rehearing en banc. ED filed an opposition to the rehearing petition on May 2, 2025, arguing that the Ninth Circuit correctly concluded that Everglades lacked prudential standing to object to the settlement. On May 21, 2025, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc and issued its mandate on May 29, 2025.
Student Loan Forgiveness
SAVE Plan
Overview
In July 2023, ED published a final rule creating a new plan to expand federal student loan borrowers' eligibility for loan forgiveness. Effective July 1, 2024, the "SAVE Rule" would have made borrowers eligible for forgiveness if they made repayments for 10 years, as opposed to 20 or 25 years under prior plans, and at substantially lower amounts compared to prior plans. ED claimed that it had authority for the SAVE Rule under 20 U.S.C. § 1087e(d)(1).
Two groups of states challenged the SAVE Rule, arguing that its early forgiveness and lower payment provisions were not Congressionally authorized and therefore violated the APA. State of Missouri et al. v. Biden et al., No. 24-cv-00520 (E.D. Mo.), No. 24-2332 (8th Cir.); State of Kansas et al. v. Biden et al., No. 24-cv-01057 (D. Kan.), No. 24-03089 (10th Cir.).
Current Status of Litigation
In State of Missouri, the district court in June 2024 preliminarily enjoined the 10-year loan forgiveness provision, citing the lack of clear statutory authority. But it did not enjoin the lower payment provision. Both the states and ED appealed; the states also moved for a temporary injunction against the entirety of the SAVE Rule pending appeal. On August 9, 2024, the Eighth Circuit granted the states' motion. ED immediately asked the Supreme Court to vacate the injunction but it was denied in a brief, unsigned order in late August 2024.
The Eighth Circuit on February 18, 2025, dismissed ED's appeal of the district court's preliminary injunction, holding that the statute did not authorize either the SAVE Rule's 10-year loan forgiveness provision or the lower payment provision. ED did not challenge that ruling.
On remand, the district court ordered the parties to file a joint status report by May 5, 2025, including a proposed schedule for briefing on the merits. The parties' May 5 joint status report stated that they had "conferred about possible paths toward a negotiated resolution" and that "those conversations are ongoing." The parties also noted that "a bill was introduced in Congress on April 28, 2025, which includes statutory changes that, if enacted, may affect the claims presented by Plaintiff States." The parties therefore requested the district court allow them to "continue their discussions regarding further proceedings." On May 6, 2025, the district court ordered the parties to file a status report by August 4, 2025. The SAVE Rule remains enjoined at this time.
On July 21, 2025, an individual (Taylor A. Story) filed a motion for leave to intervene in the action as well as a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin Defendants from "restarting the accrual of interest on student loans in the SAVE Plan until it rectifies the erroneous sums added to Intervenor's loan during the zero-interest forbearance period."
The Court denied his motion to intervene and his motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction as moot. While sympathizing with Story's situation, the Court found that Story's economic interested in the outcome of the litigation is alone insufficient to confer a right to intervene in this action. The Court stated: "the fact that Story owes balances on student loans held by the Department and that those balances and the servicing of his loans have been affected by the preliminary injunctions issued by the Court does not provide him a right to intervene in this action."
This holding is consistent with many federal courts which have determined that intervenors, like Story, lack standing because they do not have a protectable legal interest in the litigation.
In State of Kansas, the district court also issued a preliminary injunction order in June 2024. ED appealed, but the Tenth Circuit stayed the appeal pending the Eighth Circuit's decision, since the two cases presented the same issue. After the Eighth Circuit's February 2025 ruling, the Tenth Circuit requested supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the Eighth Circuit's opinion. Supplemental briefs were filed, but in March 2025, the Tenth Circuit continued the stay. During the continued stay, the parties must file a joint status report every 45 days. In the most recent June status report, the parties requested that the Tenth Circuit continue the stay. Meanwhile, in April 2025, the district court also stayed proceedings for 90 days and ordered a status report be filed within 90 days.
While the SAVE Rule litigation remains ongoing, given the Trump Administration's position regarding student loan forgiveness generally, it is unlikely ED will attempt to defend the SAVE Rule moving forward. This said, the Administration also may work to extend the litigation, such that Congressional Republicans can claim the significant savings associated with cancelling the program as part of their reconciliation strategy.
On July 23, 2025, the parties filed a joint status report requesting that the litigation remain stayed, stating: " [...] legislation was recently enacted into law that makes certain changes to student loan repayment plans. See Public Law No. 119-21. The parties are currently evaluating that legislation, and discussing the effect (if any) that it may have on the remainder of this litigation." In response, The Court ordered the stay of this action and directed the parties to file a joint status report within 90 days.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act ("OBBB"), signed into law by President Trump on July, 4, 2025, overhauls the federal student loan system, including the Save Plan. As it stands, the Save Plan is ending. The ED announced that it is restarting interest accrual for SAVE borrowers on August 1, 2025. Because the SAVE plan is still enjoined, borrowers are not required to make payments. However, rather than accrue interest, SAVE borrowers will likely be prompted to move to one of the two new repayment plans offered under the OBBB, which will not be ready for another year.
In light of the enactment of the OBBB, the court has ordered the parties to file a joint status report on or before October 3, 2025, advising the Court of the outstanding matters in this case and a joint proposed scheduling plan for the remainder of this litigation
Proposed Rule Litigation
Overview
In April 2024, ED published a notice of proposed rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") that, like the SAVE Rule, would also have forgiven loan balances for qualifying borrowers. Eligibility for forgiveness under this Proposed Rule mirrored the eligibility criteria under the SAVE Rule, but ED claimed authority to forgive loans under an entirely different statute—20 U.S.C. § 1082(a)(6).
Current Status of Litigation
Several states filed a lawsuit and a motion for an injunction in September 2024, challenging the Proposed Rule. State of Missouri et al. v. U.S. Dep't of Ed., et al., No. 24-cv-00103 (S.D. Ga.), No. 24-cv-01316 (E.D. Mo.). As with the SAVE Rule challenges, they argued the Proposed Rule lacked clear statutory authorization. Ultimately, due to procedural issues regarding venue, the case has been in two federal district courts: first, a court in Georgia, and then a court in Missouri. Both courts—like those in the SAVE Rule cases—enjoined the Proposed Rule, again citing a lack of statutory authority for loan forgiveness. This time, however, ED did not appeal the injunctions.
In December 2024, ED withdrew the Proposed Rule. The litigation technically remains active today because of an unresolved challenge to whether the Missouri court was a proper venue. On April 9, 2025, the Eastern District of Missouri ordered the parties to file a joint status update by May 9, 2025, and to "include the parties' positions on whether a live case or controversy remains in this action..."
On May 9, 2025, the parties filed a joint status report, stating that "in recent weeks, counsel for the parties have met and conferred about possible paths towards a negotiated resolution of this litigation." Like in the SAVE Rule litigation, they also noted that "a bill was introduced in Congress on April 28, 2025, which includes statutory changes that, if enacted, may affect the claims presented by Plaintiff States." Accordingly, the parties asked the district court to "allow the parties to continue their discussions" and to file a future status report in 60 days.
Most recently, on June 20, 2025, the court ordered the parties to file a joint status update by July 24, 2025, and again to "include the parties' positions on whether a live case or controversy remains in this action."
Pursuant to the Court's June 20, 2025, Order, on July 24, 2025, the parties file a joint status report addressing "whether a live case or controversy remains in this action under Article III." The parties disagree on that question with the ED maintaining that the case is moot and Plaintiffs maintaining that a live controversy remains.
On September 8, 2025, the Court denied the DE's motion to dismiss for proper venue and ordered that "in light of the Defendants' position that 'it is now beyond all doubt that this case is moot,' "Defendants shall file a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Title IX
Overview
On April 29, 2024, ED published a new Title IX rule ("2024 Title IX Rule"), which went into effect August 1, 2024. The 2024 Title IX Rule, among other things, expanded the definition of "discrimination on the basis of sex" to include discrimination on the basis of "sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity."
Current Status of Litigation
Twenty-six states and numerous private parties filed or joined lawsuits seeking to block the implementation and enforcement of the 2024 Title IX Rule. The litigation initially resulted in several preliminary injunctions issued by multiple federal courts, but none on a nationwide basis; the injunctions instead only applied to schools in the plaintiff states and to schools where a member of a plaintiff organization was a student. This resulted in a patchwork application of the 2024 Title IX Rule, with some schools following the prior 2020 Title IX Rule from the first Trump administration and others following the 2024 Title IX Rule.
However, on January 9, 2025, the Eastern District of Kentucky vacated the 2024 Title IX Rule on a nationwide basis. This decision was the first issued on the merits, meaning it is a final (not a preliminary) decision. The court's order noted several reasons for finding the 2024 Title IX Rule invalid, including that ED exceeded its statutory authority in expanding the definition of "sex," that the 2024 Title IX Rule was arbitrary and capricious, and that the 2024 Title IX Rule violated the First Amendment.
ED did not appeal the Eastern District of Kentucky's decision. But in late March 2025, two non-profit organizations moved to intervene in the case and filed notices of appeal to the Sixth Circuit. As for the other pending cases, after President Trump took office, ED withdrew their pending appeals in Louisiana v. U.S. Dep't of Ed.,No. 24-cv-00563 (W.D. La.) (5th Cir. No. 24-30399), Kansas v. U.S. Dep't of Ed., No. 24-cv-04041 (D. Kan.) (10th Cir. No. 24-3097), Oklahoma v. Cardona, No. 24-cv-00461 (W.D. Oka.) (10th Cir. No. 24-6205), Texas v. United States of America, No. 24-cv-00086 (N.D. Tex.) (5th Cir. No. 24-10832), and Arkansas v. U.S. Dep't of Ed., No. 24-cv-00636, (E.D. Miss.) (8th Cir. No. 24-2921).
An appeal remains pending in Alabama v. Cardona, No. 24-cv-00533 (N.D. Ala.) (11th Cir. 24-12444). On August 5, 2025, the Court requested briefing from the parties on whether the plaintiffs' appeal of the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction moot in light of the Eastern District of Kentucky's final judgment vacating the 2024 Title IX regulations. Both parties' briefs have been submitted and review by the Court is underway.
The effect President Trump's January 20, 2025, Executive Order 14168 will have on the pending 2024 Title IX Rule litigation is an open question. Because the Executive Order states that the current administration will define "sex" as male or female, based on biological sex assigned at birth, it seems likely that ED will have little appetite to defend the 2024 Title IX Rule, and may use the Executive Order's definition in its investigations going forward.
False Claims Act
Overview
The constitutionality of the qui tam, or whistleblower, provision of the False Claims Act ("FCA") has been the subject of several recent challenges.
In United States ex rel. Zafirovv. Florida Medical Associates LLC, No. 19-cv-01236 (M.D. Fla.), originally filed in 2019, the defendants challenged whether whistleblowers could represent the federal government in FCA actions – where the government has not intervened in the case – without violating the Constitution's Appointments Clause. In September 2024, the district court agreed, issuing its decision declaring the qui tam provision of the FCA unconstitutional, raising significant questions about the future of whistleblower litigation. The government appealed to the Eleventh Circuit (11th Cir. 24-13581, 24-13583).
In U.S. ex rel. Penelow et al. v. Janssen Products LP, the whistleblowers alleged that defendants violated the FCA, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, and various state False Claims Acts in connection with the sale of certain medications. In 2016, the government declined to intervene in the lawsuit. The case went to a jury, which found in favor of the whistleblowers. The award, including treble damages, totaled $1.64 billion. The defendants appealed to the Third Circuit arguing, among other things, that the qui tam provision of the FCA was unconstitutional.
Current Status of Litigation
In Zafirov, the government's appeal to the Eleventh Circuit is pending and the Court is currently scheduling oral argument.
In Penelow, the defendants filed their brief on July 14, 2025, and the whistleblowers are scheduled to file their own brief in September. The DOJ filed an intervenor and amicus brief arguing that the qui tam provision is, in fact, constitutional.
If the Courts of Appeals agree that the qui tam provision is unconstitutional, it could either foreclose FCA whistleblower claims altogether (if a broader application), or substantially limit them to cases only where the government intervenes (a narrower application). The ruling could have broad implications, particularly in higher education, where FCA suits are prevalent. Depending on the outcome of the litigation, Congress could seek a legislative fix due to the substantial federal revenue generated by these suits.
DOJ'S Civil Rights Fraud Initiative
On May 19, 2025, United States Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche circulated a memo to the Department of Justice announcing the launch of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, a new effort aimed at leveraging the FCA and its qui tam provisions to pursue entities that "defraud the United States by taking its money while knowingly violating civil rights laws." Co-led by the Fraud Section of the Civil Division and the Civil Rights Division, this initiative marks a shift in the government's traditional FCA enforcement and could expose corporations, universities, and nonprofits to civil and criminal investigations. The announcement encourages private citizens to file qui tam suits, which will likely be filed under seal as required, allowing the government time to investigate and decide whether to intervene.
Federal Funding Freeze Litigation
Overview
On January 27, 2025, the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") issued a memorandum directing federal agencies to pause all activities related to federal financial assistance impacted by various executive orders, including funding for foreign aid, DEI programs, and the Green New Deal. This pause was set to begin on January 28, 2025.
On January 29, 2025, however, OMB issued a new memorandum (M-25-14) purportedly rescinding the original directive, though White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced from her official social media account that the new memorandum was "NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze," and instead only rescinded M-25-13. Post by Karoline Leavitt, X (formerly Twitter) (Jan. 29, 2025).
Several nonprofit organizations filed a lawsuit, National Council of Nonprofits, et al. v. Office of Management and Budget, No. 25-cv-00239 (D.D.C.), against OMB, claiming the pause violated the APA and the First Amendment.
Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia filed a separate lawsuit in Rhode Island, New York v. Trump, No. 25-cv-00039 (D.R.I.), against the President, several executive branch agencies, and the heads of those agencies. Both lawsuits were filed before OMB rescinded its original memorandum instituting the funding freeze.
Current Status of Litigation
On February 3, 2025, the D.C. court granted National Council of Nonprofits' motion for a temporary restraining order. It subsequently entered a preliminary injunction against OMB on February 25, 2025. The preliminary injunction enjoins OMB "from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name the unilateral, non-individualized directives in [the OMB memorandum] with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards." OMB appealed the district court's preliminary injunction order on April 24. The district court has since stayed the case pending the outcome of the appeal other than requiring OMB to produce the administrative record and allowing the nonprofit organizations to submit additional discovery requests, if needed. Briefing is scheduled to be completed by October 27, 2025.
The Rhode Island court issued a TRO against the government defendants on January 31, 2025, prohibiting the freeze on funds. The court later extended the TRO on February 6, 2025, and entered a preliminary injunction against the government defendants on March 6, 2025. The government defendants appealed the court's preliminary injunction order four days later and simultaneously sought a stay of the litigation while the appeal proceeded. The appellate court denied the motion to stay on March 31, 2025. Briefing on the merits of the appeal is complete.
DEI Executive Orders Litigation, the Dear Colleague Letter Litigation, and the Disparate Impact Executive Order
DEI Executive Orders
Overview
In early 2025, President Trump issued two executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives:
- Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing
- Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity
These orders restrict "equity-related" grants and certifications and have sparked widespread litigation alleging violations of the First and Fifth Amendments, as well as improper executive overreach.
- National Assoc. of Diversity Officers in Higher
Educ. et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al.,
No. 25-cv-00333 (D. Md.)
- Higher ed officials, workers, and the City of Baltimore challenged the DEI executive orders. The court issued a preliminary injunction, finding likely First and Fifth Amendment violations, but the Fourth Circuit stayed that injunction pending appeal. Oral arguments were held on September 11, 2025.
- Other Federal Lawsuits
- National Urban League v. U.S. Dep't of Ed., No. 25-cv-471 (D.D.C.): Injunction denied; plaintiffs lacked standing or failed to show a likely constitutional violation.
- In San Francisco Aids Foundation v. U.S. Dep't of Ed., No. 25-cv-01824 (N.D. Cal.): Preliminary injunction granted but limited to plaintiffs' grants.
- Chicago Women in Trades v. U.S. Dep't of Ed., No. 25-cv-2005 (N.D. Ill.): Injunction granted but limited to Department of Labor and specific grants. Appeal pending.
As of now, the DEI Executive Orders remain in force for the Department of Education.
Dear Colleague Letter Litigation
The DCL and April 3, 2025, certification requirement have been vacated under the APA. The Frequently Asked Questions and End DEI portal remain stayed as set forth below.
Overview
In response to the Department of Education's Feb. 14, 2025 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) and an April 3 certification requirement, multiple lawsuits were filed arguing the DCL rewrote Title VI legal standards and imposed unlawful requirements.
Key Decisions:
- Am. Federation of Teachers v. U.S. Dep't of Ed., et al., No. 25-cv-00628 (D. Md.): Court vacated the DCL and certification requirement under the APA and Constitution. This vacatur applies nationwide, despite limitations on nationwide injunctions because it was set aside under the APA (5 U.S.C.§ 706). No appeal has been filed.
- National Education Assoc. v. U.S. Dep't of Ed.,
No. 25-cv-91 (D. N.H.):
- Preliminary injunction blocks DCL, FAQs, End DEI Portal, and certification for plaintiffs and their affiliates.
- Summary judgment briefing is ongoing.
- NAACP v. U.S. Dep't of Ed., et al., No. 25-cv-1120
(D.D.C.):
- Partial injunction blocks certification requirement.
- Amended complaint and motion to dismiss are pending.
The Disparate Impact Executive Order
On April 23, 2025, the White House issued an EO titled "Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy", seeking to:
- Eliminate disparate impact liability—the theory that
neutral policies can be unlawful if they disproportionately affect
protected groups.
- Current Supreme Court precedent accepts disparate impact liability in the employment context. See Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 432 (1971).
- Direct agencies to deprioritize enforcement, reevaluate ongoing cases, and repeal relevant regulations.
This EO is expected to face legal challenges and may impact how DEI policies are implemented across federal programs, especially in education and grants.
The July 29, 2025 DOJ Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination
The Department of Justice issued new non-binding guidance for federal funding recipients:
- Emphasizes broad restrictions on race- or sex-based programs.
- Highlights that many traditional DEI practices (e.g., affinity groups, race-targeted scholarships, "diverse slate" hiring) may violate federal law.
- Suggesting that SFFA v. Harvard applies beyond admissions, suggesting widespread scrutiny of DEI efforts.
Some of the "unlawful" practices listed in the Guidance would seem to be protected by the disparate impact EO discussed above.
Summary
- DEI Executive Orders: In force but partially enjoined in multiple cases; major appellate rulings pending.
- DCL and Certification: Vacated nationwide in
one case
- The Frequently Asked Questions and End DEI portal remain stayed.
- Disparate Impact EO: Legally in force, but litigation expected.
- DOJ Guidance: Clarifies administration's stance; not legally binding but influential
Executive Order 14242 Directing the Closure of ED
Overview
On March 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14242, titled "Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities."
The Executive Order directed the Secretary of Education "to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities." Several lawsuits immediately challenged the Executive Order.
The next day, President Trump announced that management of the federal student loan and special needs programs would be transferred to the Small Business Administration and Department of Health and Human Services respectively.
In NAACPv. United States, No. 25-cv-00965 (D. Md.), the NAACP, education advocacy groups, and three children sued challenging Executive Order 14242 on the basis that it violates the Constitution's take care and spending clauses, the separation of powers, and the APA.
In Somerville Public Schools et al. v. Trump et al., No. 25-cv-10677 (D. Mass.), the plaintiffs, including two Massachusetts school districts and five teacher unions, filed a lawsuit challenging Executive Order 14242 as unlawful. They too allege it violates the separation of powers, the Constitution's take care clause, and the APA.
Following a March 11, 2025 "reduction in force" at ED, on March 13, 2025, plaintiffs, including nineteen states and the District of Columbia, filed State of New York et al. v. McMahon et al., No. 25-cv-10601 (D. Mass.). Plaintiffs argued that the reduction in force (RIF) violated the separation of powers and the APA.
A separate case, Victims Rights Law Center, et al. v. U.S. Dep't of Ed., et al., No. 25-cv-11042 (D. Mass), was filed challenging the RIF as it relates to employees in the Office of Civil Rights. Plaintiffs contend that the RIF, as it concerns OCR employees, violates the APA and mandates under civil rights laws.
Finally, filed one week before Executive Order 14242, plaintiffs in Carter et al. v. U.S. Dep't of Ed., No. 25-cv-00744 (D.D.C.) filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin ED's reduction in force and "decimation" of its Office of Civil Rights on the basis that it, among other things, violates the APA and Fifth Amendment protections. Plaintiffs are a group of parents and students who have civil rights complaints pending before OCR, and an organization, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. ("COPAA"), that is a "national not-for-profit membership organization whose membership comprises parents of children with disabilities, their attorneys, and their advocates."
Current Status of Litigation
The Maryland court denied Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction on August 19, 2025. It also denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the claims asserted against it on the same day. Both motions were denied without prejudice so it is possible that they could be refiled at a later date.
The Massachusetts court consolidated the Sommerville Public Schools and State of New York cases and granted the plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunction on May 22, 2025. Under the order, the court enjoined ED from 1) carrying out the RIF; 2) implementing the March 20, 2025, executive order directing ED to take all legal steps necessary to facilitate ED's closure; and 3) carrying out President Trump's announcement regarding the transfer of management of the student loan and special education programs from ED to the Small Business Administration and Department of Health and Human Services. ED and President Trump appealed the preliminary injunction order almost immediately after it was entered and asked the district to stay enforcement of the preliminary injunction during the pendency of the appeal. The Supreme Court granted the administration's motion to stay the enforcement of the injunction on July 14, 2025. As a result, the administration may continue implementing the RIF while the cases work their way through the appellate process. The administration's opening merits brief in the First Circuit is due on September 3, 2025.
In light of the Supreme Court's July 14, 2025, stay of the enforcement of the injunction, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the Massachusetts court issue an indicative ruling stating that it would vacate the Injunction if the First Circuit were to remand the Agency Defendants' appeal and schedule a status conference at the Court's convenience on or after September 12, 2025, to discuss the prompt and efficient advancement of this matter to final judgment on the merits.
On June 18, 2025, the court in Victims Rights Law Center entered a preliminary injunction requiring that ED bring affected OCR back to active duty. ED has appealed, and like in the other RIF case, asked that the district court's preliminary injunction be stayed while the case works its way through the appellate process. ED also asked the district court to vacate the preliminary injunction given the Supreme Court's July 14 order in the lead RIF case, State of New York. The district denied the motion to vacate. And the motion to stay remains pending in the appellate court.
The D.C. court denied the Carter plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction on May 21, 2025. In denying the motion, the court determined that the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on their claims because there was no evidence that OCR has failed to perform its duties and "broad programmatic attacks" are not viable claims under the Administrative Procedures Act. The court entered an order staying the case pending further order of the court and the parties have periodically submitted status reports.
Grant Termination
Countless federal grant programs administered by ED, the National Institutes of Health ("NIH"), and other agencies have been impacted since January 2025. Existing grants have been cancelled and applications for new grants have been denied, largely because of the Administration's anti-DEI policies. Countless lawsuits have been filed, and courts have issued dozens of opinions in recent months in these cases. We summarize below the most high-profile grant litigation
Teacher Grant Termination
Overview
In the wake of the DEI Executive Orders, ED terminated grants that had been awarded to colleges to support teacher education and development. ED claimed that the grants promoted "illegal" DEI and were "inconsistent with, and no longer effectuated, Department priorities."
Two lawsuits challenged the grant terminations under the APA and the Constitution. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, et al. v. McMahon, et al., No. 25-cv-00702 (D. Md.), No. 25-1281 (4th Cir.) ("AACTE"); California et al. v. U.S. Dep't of Ed., No. 25-cv-10548 (D. Mass.), No. 25-1244 (1st Cir.), No. 24A910 (U.S.) ("California"). The plaintiffs successfully sought injunctive relief in district court to restore their grants. In March 2025, after the district court in both cases ordered the grants be reinstated, ED appealed and moved to stay the injunctions pending appeal. After the First Circuit in California rejected ED's motion to stay, ED filed an emergency application to stay the injunctions in the Supreme Court.
Current Status of Litigation
In April 2025, the Supreme Court granted ED's application and ordered the grants be re-terminated pending a future decision on the merits. It said that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs' APA claims seeking reinstatement of grants because were "contract" claims seeking money. Under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over money damages claims against the United States based on contract. ED in California then voluntarily dismissed its appeal of the injunction in the First Circuit.
Because the Supreme Court ruled only on ED's emergency request for a stay of the injunction, it was not a "final" decision. The parties in California are now back in the district court and are briefing the same issue in the context of ED's motion to dismiss the claims (ED brief; plaintiffs' brief). A ruling is expected soon.
Meanwhile, after the Supreme Court ruling, the Fourth Circuit in AACTE granted a stay of the injunction and ordered the affected grants be re-terminated as well. The parties are now briefing ED's appeal of the injunction in the Fourth Circuit. ED filed its opening brief in June, plaintiffs' response was filed in July, and ED's reply was filed in early August. Oral argument is tentatively scheduled for December 2025.
NIH Grant Termination
Overview
Beginning in February 2025, the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") terminated hundreds of existing research grants it had previously awarded to research universities. NIH stated that the grants promoted illegal DEI and therefore "no longer effectuated" NIH's "priorities."
Several lawsuits challenged the terminations under the APA and Constitution, and sought injunctions to have the grants reinstated. These suits also allege that NIH delayed in considering new grant applications. American Public Health Association, et al. v. National Institutes of Health, et al., No. 25-cv-10787 (D. Mass), No. 25-1611 (1st Cir.), No. 25A103 (U.S.) ("APHA"); Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al. v. Kennedy, Jr., et al., No. 25-cv-10814 (D. Mass), No. 25-1611 (1st Cir.); No. 25A103 (U.S.) ("Commonwealth"); American Association of University Professors, et al. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, et al., No. 25-cv-02429 (S.D.N.Y.), No. 25-1529 (2nd Cir.).
The district court in both APHA and Commonwealth – which are pending before the same judge – ruled for the plaintiffs on the government's Tucker Act argument that the court lacked jurisdiction (Commonwealth; APHA). The two cases were then consolidated. After an evidentiary hearing and bench trial, the district court ruled that NIH's terminations violated the APA and vacated them. After the court entered a partial final judgment for plaintiffs, the government appealed it to the First Circuit, and asked both the district court and the First Circuit to stay the judgment pending appeal. Both the district court and the First Circuit denied the request. The government then filed an emergency application to stay in the Supreme Court.
Current Status of Litigation
In August 2025, the Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part the government's application. A five-justice majority held that plaintiffs' APA claims challenging NIH's terminations of pre-existing grants were "contract" claims that sought to enforce an "obligation to pay money" and thus were within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act. This ruling is likely to result in pending and future grant termination litigation being heard in the Court of Federal Claims.
The parties are separately addressing in district court the plaintiffs' other claims under the APA that NIH unreasonably delayed in considering their new grant applications.
In American Association of University Professors, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction in April 2025. In June 2025, the district court both denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, after finding the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because the terminated NIH grants had been awarded to Columbia, not to the plaintiff organizations or researchers. The court also found the organizational plaintiffs lacked standing to sue on their own behalf because they had not demonstrated injuries to themselves. Plaintiffs have appealed to the 2nd Circuit. A ruling is not expected until 2026.
Harvard Funding Freeze
Overview
In April 2025, Harvard College sued ED and other federal agencies over the government's "freeze" of $2.2 billion in funding (including NIH grants) to the university. President and Fellows of Harvard College v. U.S. Dep't of Ed., et al., No. 25-cv-11048 (D. Mass). The government paused Harvard's funding after finding that it failed to protect students from anti-Semitic violence and harassment and therefore violated Title VI's prohibition on discrimination (which covers discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism). Harvard alleges that the funding freeze violates the First Amendment, the APA, and Title VI.
Notably, Harvard did not move for a preliminary injunction – it instead asked the court to set an expedited schedule for the government to produce an administrative record and for the parties to file motions for summary judgment. After the government produced a record in May 2025, Harvard filed a motion for summary judgment. The defendants filed an opposition and a cross motion for summary judgment. Harvard filed an opposition to the cross motion and reply in support of its motion, and defendants filed a reply in support of their cross motion.
Current Status of Litigation
Following oral argument, the district court on September 3, 2025 issued an 80-plus page opinion granting Harvard's motion for summary judgment on the majority of its claims. The court found that the defendants' bases for withholding federal funding to Harvard was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA, infringed on Harvard's First Amendment rights, and was implemented without following strict notice and hearing procedures that apply before federal funding can be withheld on the basis of a Title VI violation. The district court specifically rejected the defendants' argument that Harvard's claims belonged in the Court of Federal Claims, distinguishing the APHA decision in which the Supreme Court just days earlier had ruled that claims challenging grant terminations are within the Court of Federal Claims' exclusive jurisdiction.
The court has directed the parties to submit a status report by September 19, 2025 that states whether any final issues need to be resolved before the court enters a final judgment that may then be appealed.
Rate Cap Policy Litigation
Member associations and several institutions of higher education filed several cases after federal agencies announced a new Rate Cap Policy of paying 15% across-the-board for reimbursement for facilities and administrative costs associated with grants. Reimbursement rates previously had been substantially higher. The Rate Cap Policies of NIH, HHS, DOE and NSF have all been enjoined nationally or self-paused. These cases include as plaintiffs the Association of American Universities, which is suing on behalf of its 71 member institutions, and the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, which is suing on behalf of its 222 member institutions. Those institutions effectively are parties to that litigation through associational standing. All of these member institutions will have the benefit of the injunctions entered in these cases because AAU and APLU are plaintiffs suing on behalf of those institutions. Note, however, that the Government has been challenging the constitutionality of associational standing and arguing that relief should only be given to association members who are named as parties in the complaint. See, e.g., Trump v. CASA, 145 S. Ct. 2540, 2549 n. 2 (2025); see also Food and Drug Admin. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al., 144 S.Ct. 1540, 1565 (2024) (J. Thomas, concurring) (asking court to examine the constitutionality of associational standing).
Ass'n of Am. Univ., et al. v. Dep't of Health and Human Services, Nat'l Inst. of Heath, et al, No. 1:25-cv-10346 (D. Mass.), on appeal no. 25-1345 (1st Cir.). The district court entered a judgment and permanent injunction in this case as to the Rate Cap Policies of HHS and NIH, using 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act to vacate in its entirety the notice setting the rate cap. It is currently on appeal to the First Circuit where briefing is finished. Oral argument has not been set.
Ass'n of Am. Univ., et al.. v. Dep't of Energy, et al., No. 1:25-cv-10912 (D. Mass.). On May 15, 2025, the district court entered a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the DOE from giving effect to its Rate Cap Policy with respect to any institution of higher learning until further order, and used 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act to vacate in its entirety the notice setting the rate cap . The government has appealed to the First Circuit (25-1727), and Appellants' brief is due September 24, 2025.
Ass'n of Am. Univ., et al. v. Nat'l Science Found., No. 1:25-cv-11231 (D. Mass.). The Court granted Plaintiffs summary judgment on June 20, 2025, and vacated the 15% rate cap policy. The government has appealed (25-1794).
Ass'n of Am. Univ., et al. v. Dep't of Defense, No. 1:25-cv-11740 (D. Mass). Plaintiffs challenged the DOD's proposed 15% rate cap policy. On June 17, 2025, the Court entered a nationwide TRO. On July 18, 2025, the district court granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary relief, enjoining the rate cap policy as to Plaintiffs and their member institutions. This raises the interesting question about whether the DOD will try to enforce this rate cap policy as to other institutions which are not Plaintiffs or members of the Plaintiffs in this case. Plaintiffs have now filed for summary judgment and briefing is underway.
Student and Exchange Visitor Program Litigation
On May 22, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it would be revoking Harvard University's certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), which gives them the ability to sponsor F and J visas for international students. DHS's announcement claimed Harvard had failed to comply with an April 16 demand for records on international students, including disciplinary, legal, and academic information.
On May 23, 2025, Harvard filed a lawsuit against DHS and several other executive branch agencies and moved for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the revocation of Harvard's certification under the SEVP. See President and Fellows of Harvard College v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 1:25-cv-11472 (D. Mass.).The complaint alleges that DHS's action violates the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the APA, among other things.
The same day, the court granted Harvard's motion for a TRO, allowing Harvard to continue enrolling international students and scholars as the case proceeds.
On June 4, 2025, President Trump issued a Proclamation titled "Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University," which suspends entry to the United States for any international student studying at Harvard University on an F or J visa. The next day, Harvard amended its Complaint and moved for a TRO as to the June 4 Proclamation. On June 5, the court granted Harvard's motion for a TRO, holding that both the TRO related to SEVP certification and the Proclamation were necessary to preserve the status quo until a hearing could be held. Both TROs were in effect until June 20, 2025 "or such earlier time as a preliminary injunction order can be issued."
Harvard then moved for a preliminary injunction on June 12. Following expedited briefing and a hearing on June 16, the district court granted the motion June 20. The preliminary injunction enjoins defendants from implementing or otherwise enforcing the May 22 revocation of Harvard's SEVP certification and requires the defendants to restore every Harvard international student on an F or J visa, and such international student applicants to the position they would have been in but for the May 22 revocation notice.
On June 27, the government appealed the Court's preliminary injunction order (Appeal No. 25-1627, 1st Cir.). The government's brief is due August 25, 2025, Harvard's response will be due September 24, 2025, and then the reply will be due on October 15, 2025.
On August 6, 2025, Defendants stipulated that the May 22 letter will not be used to revoke Harvard's SEVP certification or Exchange Visitor Program designation. Defendants are currently following the procedures under 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.3, 214.4 and 22 C.F.R. Part 62.
The government filed a motion to dismiss the case on August 8, 2025. Harvard opposed the motion to dismiss on September 5, 2025.
Legality of Nationwide Injunctions
Numerous federal district courts have entered "universal" or "nationwide" injunction orders that enjoin presidential executive orders. This is a bipartisan issue of which the Obama and Biden administrations also complained. The Supreme Court recently answered the question of whether district courts have the authority to issue "universal" or "nationwide" injunctions in Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Casa, Inc., et al. No. 24A884 (U.S.), which originated from three separate lawsuits1 filed in federal district courts by individuals, organizations, and multiple states. The lawsuits sought to block the implementation of President Trump's Executive Order No. 14160, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," which sought to redefine eligibility criteria for birthright citizenship under certain circumstances.
Each of the lower courts issued a universal preliminary injunction, preventing enforcement of the Executive Order against all individuals nationwide, not just the parties to the cases.
The Supreme Court held that universal—or nationwide—injunctions exceed the authority granted to lower courts by Congress and are therefore unlawful. The Court clarified that the law permits injunctions only to prevent the government from enforcing a challenged statute or Executive Order against the specific plaintiffs in the case (and those with standing who the plaintiffs sue on behalf of), but not against nonparties. As a result, individuals adversely affected by an unlawful statute or Executive Order must file their own lawsuits in order to obtain injunctive relief.
Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) was not at issue in Trump v. Casa, the Court's decision specifically excluded APA-based claims from its holding.
In footnote 10 of the opinion, the Court noted that it was not addressing whether the APA permits courts to issue preliminary injunctions or vacate agency actions.
Footnote 10: "Nothing we say today resolves the distinct question whether the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to vacate federal agency action. See 5 U. S. C. §706(2) (authorizing courts to "hold unlawful and set aside agency action").
Accordingly, this decision does not affect the use of "universal vacaturs" under the APA. For example, a Maryland district court recently vacated ED's Dear Colleague Letter in its entirety, applicable to all, as discussed more fully in the DEI section of this summary.
Since the Supreme Court decided Trump v. Casa, district courts have decided whether to certify a nationwide class to grant relief similar to that of a universal or nationwide injunction. On the same day the Supreme Court decided Trump v. Casa, the plaintiffs moved in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to certify a class and requested immediate injunctive relief. On July 16, 2025, the District of Maryland stated that it would grant the motion, but ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' motion due to the pending appeal and ordered that the motion be held in abeyance until it received further direction from the Fourth Circuit. In light of that ruling, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Shortly thereafter, the district court certified a class of plaintiffs and granted the plaintiffs' motion for a classwide preliminary injunction.
In Washington v. Trump, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington declined the individual plaintiffs' emergency motion to lift the stay that was previously entered pending appeal to rule on the plaintiffs' attempt to seek class certification, stating that the Ninth Circuit had already began to determine the scope of the previously entered preliminary injunction. Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit upheld the scope of the universal, nationwide injunction as necessary to grant the state plaintiffs complete relief.
In Barbara v. Trump, 1:25-cv-244 (D.N.H.), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire certified a nationwide class and granted preliminary injunctive relief to enjoin the same executive order regarding birthright citizenship that was at issue in Trump v. Casa. On September 5, 2025, the DOJ appealed the preliminary injunction.
As an example of post Trump v. Casa activity in a matter unrelated to birthright citizenship, in Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump, 1:25-cv-02005 (N.D. Ill.) the government defendants filed a motion seeking a narrowing of the previously entered nationwide injunction to the plaintiffs involved in the case and briefing is underway. The district court has yet to rule on the motion.
Footnote
1. CASA, Inc. v. Trump, No. 8:25-cv-00201 (D. Md.), No. 25-1153 (4th Cir.); Washington v. Trump, No. 2:25-cv-00127 (W.D. Wash.), No. 25-807 (9th Cir.); and Doe v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-10139 (D. Mass), No. 25-1170 (1st Cir.).
Other Higher Ed-Related Cases of Interest
In Spectrum WT, et al. v. Wendler, et al., No. 23-10994 (5th Cir.), the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court's denial of a motion to preliminarily enjoin West Texas A&M University officials from canceling the LGBT+ student organization's on-campus drag show on First Amendment grounds. The show was described as rated "PG-13." The school's President Wendler canceled the show, stating that the drag show did not "preserve a single thread of human dignity" which comes from being "created in the image of God." He further stated that drag shows "stereotype women in cartoon-like extremes for the amusement of others and discriminate against womanhood." The Fifth Circuit, traditionally viewed as one of the most conservative circuits in the country, held that the student group had demonstrated a substantial likelihood that the University officials had violated the First Amendment in canceling the show, as (1) the drag show implicated the First Amendment because it conveys a message of support for LGBT+ rights, (2) the university's Legacy Hall was a designated public forum because it is open to students and nonstudents for a wide variety of events, and (3) even though the university had a legitimate interest in prohibiting some expression to protect the institutional and educational mission, the cancellation could not survive strict scrutiny because it was a "concern about content," and not a concern about "the neutrality of time, place, and circumstances." The Fifth Circuit concluded that a preliminary injunction was warranted because the "loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury," and because "injunctions protecting First Amendment freedoms are always in the public interest."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
