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.

On January 29, 2026, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey issued Executive Order No. 650, “Protecting Access to Essential Services and Keeping Massachusetts Communities Safe.” This Executive Order took effect immediately and will continue until amended, superseded, or revoked by a subsequent Executive Order.

Changing economic and political circumstances are prompting US institutions—including colleges and universities—to reconsider their publicly stated sustainability targets and climate commitments. This trend reflects economic pressures, scrutiny of climate action by the current federal administration and some state attorneys general, and the reality that many entities with decarbonization goals (e.g., “net zero by 2050”) are not on track to meet them. 

It is no secret that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) landscape has transformed into a commercial marketplace where student athletes who choose to do so can recoup not only scholarships and other educational benefits, but also direct cash payments. The landmark 2021 Supreme Court decision in NCAA v. Alston fundamentally changed the rules by allowing athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) through compensation from entities outside of a school (“external NIL”), and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in House v. NCAA, took the concept of NIL as something of value that belongs to student athletes to another level by allowing colleges to “opt in” to an agreement which allows schools to pay student athletes directly for their NIL (“internal NIL”).

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.

Recent campus events and the heightened political environment have spotlighted the importance of institutions of higher education having clear, effective policies and practices for managing free speech at campus events. Whether your institution is a public university and subject to First Amendment constraints, or a private university and guided by campus speech policies, the challenges are similar: supporting open dialogue, maintaining order, and ensuring legal compliance and non-discrimination.