University foundations currently face a more complicated set of demands than in prior years. Fundraising and stewardship remain central, but those responsibilities now sit alongside increased legal and regulatory attention, heightened expectations for governance, greater public scrutiny, and calls for closer alignment with institutional strategy and risk management.

For many foundations, the key issue is not one discrete challenge; it is the overlap of several. Changes in the regulatory environment may coincide with pressure on university budgets, questions about endowment spending, cybersecurity concerns, evolving donor expectations, or sensitive campus concerns and issues of national importance. That convergence makes it important for foundations to think more broadly about governance, preparedness, and coordination.

Before the semester begins, colleges and universities often focus on visible logistics such as move-in, orientation, course schedules, and staffing. Just as important, however, is ensuring that the right people are trained before students and faculty return. Institutions are better positioned when the employees most likely to receive complaints and reports understand their roles, reporting obligations, and institutional policies before the fall term is underway.

Summer is often the most practical time to reduce legal risk on campus. While most students are away and the academic calendar appears quieter, institutional leaders know this is when many of the decisions that shape the upcoming academic year are made. Policies are revised, trainings are scheduled, contracts are renewed, and the fiscal year turns over.

For colleges and universities, enforcement actions brought by federal government agencies, such as the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the US Department of Justice (DOJ), or the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), raise a financial threat before any lawsuit is ever filed or before any federal funding is pulled. As the federal government increases its scrutiny of higher education institutions, responding to investigations can require significant expenditures on outside counsel, document production, and compliance efforts. Many colleges and universities may not realize until it is too late that these costs fall outside the scope of their insurance coverage.

In Sabatini v. Knouse, No. SJC-13781 (Mass. May 19, 2026), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that, in the academic context, G. L. c. 214, § 1C permits a sexual harassment claim to proceed directly against an alleged individual perpetrator, not only against an educational institution. Massachusetts law, specifically, G. L. c. 214, § 1C, sets forth the right to be free from sexual harassment in Massachusetts and gives the Superior Court jurisdiction to enforce that right and award damages.

On January 21, 2026, the US Department of Education (ED) voluntarily dismissed its appeal in American Federation of Teachers, et al. v. US Department of Education, a case pending in the Fourth Circuit. ED’s appeal followed its unsuccessful defense of DEI-related guidance (the February 14, 2025 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) and related FAQ), which Hunton covered in prior client alerts here and here.

On December 1, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) announced the launch of a new Section 117 foreign gifts and contracts reporting portal. On February 23, 2026, ED announced a new interagency partnership with the U.S. Department of State (State) to support ED’s enforcement of Section 117 compliance by colleges and universities.

On December 10, 2025, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it was rescinding portions of Title VI regulations that impose liability for “criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination,” also known as disparate impact liability. DOJ will now enforce Title VI only against intentional discrimination, not against neutral policies that have disproportionate effects on racial or ethnic groups. The move follows an April 23, 2025 Executive Order directing the Attorney General to review Title VI regulations and “initiate appropriate action to repeal or amend” those regulations “to the extent they contemplate disparate-impact liability.”

On March 4, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, holding that NJ Transit—a public corporation created by the New Jersey Legislature to operate bus and rail transit—does not qualify as an “arm of the state” and therefore cannot invoke New Jersey’s sovereign immunity in court. Justice Sotomayor’s opinion clarifies and streamlines the arm‑of‑the‑state inquiry, making formal legal structure and fiscal independence the dominant considerations while diminishing the relevance of an entity’s public mission, state funding, and state control.

Title IX’s prohibition on sex-based discrimination includes an obligation to accommodate—and not discriminate against—students who are experiencing pregnancy or related conditions. Colleges and universities must ensure that pregnant students, and those who are lactating or recovering from childbirth or the termination of a pregnancy, are not excluded from participation, denied benefits, or subjected to discrimination in their education programs or activities while enrolled.