Insights

Underscoring the Administration’s intention to eradicate DEI preferences and mandates, the Department of Justice (DOJ) launched a new Civil Rights Fraud Initiative (Initiative) to be co-led by DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and Fraud Section. In response, Crowell launched its own DEI and Civil Fraud Initiative to support clients in managing the heightened risks associated with this new enforcement landscape.

On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County. In a five-justice majority opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court held that the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) does not require review of the environmental impacts of “upstream” or “downstream” related projects, and reiterated: “The bedrock principle of judicial review in NEPA cases can be stated in a word: Deference.”[1] This decision comes as the federal government works to expedite what over the years have become lengthy NEPA review processes, and not long after the White House Council on Environmental Quality rescinded its NEPA regulations.

In what may be the first lawsuit of its kind, a student has sued Yale University alleging that he has been falsely accused of using artificial intelligence on a final exam. The complaint, filed in February, could have far-reaching implications for both the use of AI by students and issues related to academic honesty.

On February 14th, 2025, the Department of Education (the “Department”) issued a Dear Colleague letter (the “Letter” or “DCL”) addressing what the Department thinks may constitute unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and other authorities. The Department also announced that it will begin “vigorously enforce[ing] the law” and assessing compliance no later than February 28th, and threatens that educational institutions that fail to comply with the Department’s new view of the federal nondiscrimination laws face investigation and loss of federal funding.

President Trump has issued several executive orders relevant to institutions of higher education. Below we detail key provisions of these executive orders to help colleges and universities stay abreast of the everchanging policy landscape, and to provide takeaways to consider while awaiting further federal guidance. 

There has been a lot of talk about diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) lately, largely due to two recent Executive Orders (EO 14151 and EO 14173) (collectively referred to as “the EOs”) signed by President Trump during his first days in office and subsequent implementing memos issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Justice Department. The EOs aim first to dismantle DEI “mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government.” Specifically, the EOs task the Director of the OPM with reviewing and revising all federal employment practices, union contracts, and trainings to ensure elimination of all DEI and related programs. They next direct federal agencies to combat private sector DEI through civil compliance investigations, to terminate equity-related initiatives, programs, grants, or contracts, and to require certifications (with potential False Claims Act liability if the certifications are not valid) that the contractor or grantee “does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable federal anti-discrimination laws.”  These EOs are discussed in detail in our prior Alert.

On January 8, 2024, New Jersey passed the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Management Act making it illegal to dispose of electric vehicle (EV) batteries in landfills and instead mandating the reuse and recycling of EV batteries. Beginning in January 2027, the Act will explicitly prohibit unauthorized persons from disposing of EV batteries and their subcomponents as solid waste. On that same date, “no solid waste facility” in New Jersey “shall knowingly accept for disposal” an EV battery unless authorized by the state.

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued an opinion in Groff v. Dejoy, that affects almost all employers, including institutions of higher education.

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court, in Students for Fair Admissions (“SFFA”) v. Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina, held that race-based admissions programs violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause (which applies to public institutions such as UNC), as well as Title VI (which applies to private institutions like Harvard).

The United States convened world leaders and other senior officials on April 22 and 23 for a Virtual Leaders Summit on Climate, fulfilling a campaign pledge and aimed at elevating U.S. global leadership on climate issues.  At the outset of the Summit, the U.S. unveiled a new target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% from 2005 levels by 2030, which will serve as the country’s “Nationally Determined Contribution” (NDC) under the Paris Agreement.  Many details on how this will be implemented in the United States and through newly launched international initiatives remain to be announced. However, the U.S. NDC, the commitments made by other key countries, and several international initiatives announced during the Summit provide early but important guidance for companies on the direction for U.S. and global climate efforts in the coming years, potential regulatory and policy implications, and opportunities to engage constructively with governments.

Earlier today President Biden signed an executive order that established a White House Office of Domestic Climate Policy and outlined a framework for involving the entire federal government and engaging the international community in combatting climate change.

Beginning in 2021, the United States may take policy and regulatory actions that align more closely with efforts undertaken in the EU and at international institutions such as APEC on the nexus of finance, trade, and climate change. More coordinated and cooperative action may be taken to set high-level standards that will be applied commercially throughout the global economy regardless of jurisdiction. International institutions are also providing greater focus on the urgency to move the global economy towards a low-carbon trajectory and build climate resiliency.

Companies must be prepared to address climate change in 2021 or risk getting left behind by an accelerating global debate regardless of the outcome of the U.S. elections on November 3. Growing public awareness, proliferating policy proposals, and the opportunity for increased public investment in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis have elevated climate to the top of the economic policy and regulatory agenda globally. Climate is increasingly top-of-mind for corporate shareholders and investors. This momentum will translate into a growing array of policies, regulations and practices in all geographies and at all levels that could reshape the operating environment and investment landscape for industry. Public-private partnerships and initiatives across all sectors of the economy will be essential to devise workable policy models and commercial solutions. Companies have a unique opportunity to step up to constructively engage.

On September 22, President Trump issued an “Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping” barring federal agencies, contractors, and the military from conducting training or other programming that “inculcates in its employees any form of race or sex stereotyping,” or “race or sex scapegoating.” This EO created enormous uncertainty—and threatened penalties and loss of funding—for agency personnel and contractors, as discussed in our September 23 alert. But the EO also caused additional concern for, and may pose a serious funding threat to, institutions of higher education. That is because, in addition to being federal contractors, many universities and colleges receive federal grants, and federal grantees are separately addressed by the EO. As federal grantees, educational institutions must now assess whether planned programming—including but not limited to diversity, anti-harassment and bias training—may be viewed by the federal government as in violation of the EO, and thus grounds to withdraw all federal funding.

Since courts first postponed proceedings last spring, the novel coronavirus has continued to rage, ending over 150,000 lives and utterly upending the best laid plans of governments, businesses, and organizations of all kinds. The federal courts are not exempt and, as the spread of the virus is again accelerating, the courts are extending changes made to their standard operating procedures over the past few months into the fall.

In looking to re-open, courts across the country are confronting both the public health and safety needs of their locales, as well as the role remote operations may continue to play. Courts—both federal and state—are reopening and implementing a patchwork of procedures on a court-by-court basis.

On May 6, 2020, the United States Department of Education issued the final rule setting out new regulations governing institutions’ response to sexual harassment and assault allegations under Title IX. Following their November 2018 release in a proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the much-anticipated regulations, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, will have the full force of law, unlike prior guidance. The new regulations, issued after the filing of more than 124,000 public comments on the NPRM, require all institutions receiving federal funding to comply by August 14, 2020.

Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and increased uncertainty on campuses across the country over enrollment, instructional modes, and revenue planning, the United States Department of Education (DoE) is poised to issue the final rule implementing Title IX. The regulations have been in the “Final Rule Stage” since November 2019, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review concluded March 27, 2020. 

As discussed last week, many courts have issued standing orders delaying civil case deadlines. Litigants should note, however, that discovery-related deadlines set pursuant to statute, local rule, or case-specific scheduling orders have sometimes been excluded from the blanket extensions granted by federal and state trial courts. For example, while the Northern District of Illinois’ 39-day blanket extension order explicitly encompasses discovery deadlines, the District of Maryland explicitly exempted the conduct of discovery in civil cases from its 84-day extension of other civil filing deadlines. And although California state courts have suspended all jury trials for 60 days, that order does not appear to extend to discovery deadlines, which under California law are not automatically affected by a change in the trial date. It is therefore important for litigants with active cases to consider whether and how any COVID-related delays impact pending discovery deadlines—and if standing delay orders do not provide any relief from discovery obligations, consider whether such relief may be warranted.

As we discussed a few weeks ago, the federal courts’ responses to COVID have varied widely. One of the most common responses across the federal courts, however, has been the extension of filing deadlines—although the particular deadlines affected and the length of the extensions granted (again) vary. To give a few examples from all levels of the federal court systems: