Higher Ed Counsel & Strategic Solutions

On August 14, 2025, the US District Court for the District of Maryland vacated the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) February 14, 2025 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL). Hunton previously provided an overview of the implications of the February 14 DCL for colleges and universities in client alerts published in February and March 2025.

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.”

Colleges and universities are uniquely positioned to foster challenging conversations and encourage engagement with controversial ideas.  Recent events have highlighted the need for institutions to balance free expression, campus safety, and community well-being while supporting robust, respectful dialogue on complex social, political, and cultural issues.

In recent years, the use of the term “rapist” on campus has sparked significant legal debate in Title IX higher education cases. Two notable cases, Nungesser v. Columbia University and the more recently decided Doe v. University of Maryland, provide contrasting judicial perspectives on this issue. In this legal update, we examine these cases, focusing on their legal reasoning, outcomes, and implications for educational institutions.

Universities serve as both learning environments and workplaces, placing them at the intersection of student rights and employee protections. This dual role brings unique obligations when it comes to providing disability accommodations. While both students and faculty are entitled to reasonable accommodations under the law, the processes, points of contact, and implementation differ significantly. Understanding these distinctions is essential for compliance, equity, and building a truly inclusive campus culture.

As civil rights compliance becomes increasingly complex and federal scrutiny continues, colleges and universities should consider reevaluating having separate approaches to handling complaints of Title IX (sex discrimination and harassment) and Title VI (race, color, national origin, and shared ancestry discrimination and harassment).

Just in time for back to school, Title IX Coordinators have one more item to add to their “to-do” list: updating their Title IX policies to reflect required definitions of certain sex offenses. Luckily, this is a relatively quick fix that may even slightly simplify your Title IX policies.

On April 23, 2025, the Administration issued an Executive Order entitled “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education” along with an accompanying fact sheet. An institution of higher education’s accreditation is a prerequisite for participation in the U.S. Department of Education’s federal student financial aid program under Title IV. 

On April 24, 2025, federal courts in New Hampshire, Maryland, and the District of Columbia weighed in on three separate challenges brought against the U.S. Department of Education’s February 14, 2025 Dear Colleague Letter (“DCL”), the March 1, 2025 Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”), and the April 24, 2025 Certification Requirement for states and public school districts (the “Certification”).