Category: Higher Ed News

State Department Unveils Student and Exchange Visitor Visa Social Media Vetting Guidance – CUPA-HR

by CUPA-HR | June 24, 2025

On June 18, the Department of State issued a cable to all U.S. diplomatic and consular posts formally expanding the screening and vetting process for applicants of F, M and J (FMJ) nonimmigrant visas. The State Department guidance resumes FMJ appointment scheduling after a previous announcement from the agency paused all student visa interviews as they prepared for the new social media screening and vetting guidance.

Background

At the end of May, the State Department announced that U.S. embassies and consular sections were pausing new student visa interviews as they awaited further guidance on new social media screening and vetting requirements. CUPA-HR joined the American Council on Education and other higher education associations on a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio requesting the agency quickly implement the new vetting measures to ensure new student visas could be efficiently processed before the 2025-2026 academic year. No further guidance was publicly announced between the announced pausing of student visa interviews and the cable sent out to all diplomatic and consular posts.

New Screening and Vetting Guidance

The cable directs consular sections to resume scheduling FMJ appointments after implementing the new vetting procedures. The guidance requires officers to conduct “a comprehensive and thorough vetting of all FMJ applicants, including online presence, to identify applicants who bear hostile attitudes toward our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles; who advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to U.S. national security; or who perpetrate unlawful antisemitic harassment or violence.” The posts are directed to implement the new guidance within five business days.

As explained in the cable, consular officers are directed to conduct intake and interviews in accordance with standard procedures, but once an FMJ applicant is otherwise eligible for the requested nonimmigrant status, officers must temporarily refuse the case under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). After refusing the case, officers must request the applicant set all social media accounts to “public,” after which the officer must examine “the applicant’s entire online presence — not just social media activity — using any appropriate search engines or other online resources.”

The new vetting procedures could limit the consular officers’ ability to process student visa applications quickly and efficiently as the cable also mentions that consular sections should “consider the effect of this guidance on workload” when resuming the scheduling of FMJ appointments. Even with these concerns, the cable does request expedited appointments for certain FMJs, including J-1 physicians and F-1 students seeking to study at U.S. institutions where the international student body constitutes 15 percent or less of the total student population.

While much of the advocacy from interested stakeholders on this issue revolves around students, individuals seeking J-1 visas to participate in cultural and educational exchange programs to conduct research or teach at institutions could be subject to an enhanced level of scrutiny. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for updates related to the FMJ vetting processes.

Share This Article:

Source link

June 24, 2025
Senate Introduces Legislation to Increase Federal Minimum Wage to $15 per Hour – CUPA-HR

by CUPA-HR | June 24, 2025

On June 10, Senators Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Peter Welch (D-VT) introduced the Higher Wages for American Workers Act (S. 2013). The Higher Wages for American Workers Act would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour and directing the secretary of labor to adjust the minimum wage annually based on inflation.

Higher Wages for American Workers Act

The bill proposes to increase the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 per hour beginning January 1 of the first year after enactment. Each year after, the secretary of labor is directed to increase the minimum wage annually by “the percentage increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.”

Although the federal minimum wage has not been increased since 2009, several states have increased their state minimum wage above the current $7.25 per hour. As of January 1, 2025, 30 states and the District of Columbia have minimum wage laws set above the federal level, and 10 states and the District of Columbia have a minimum wage of $15 per hour or higher. All other states must follow the minimum wage set by Congress through the FLSA.

Looking Ahead

While legislation has been introduced in recent years to increase the federal minimum wage, calls to increase the level to $15 per hour have mostly come from Congressional Democrats. It is therefore notable that Republican Senator Josh Hawley is leading efforts on this issue. It remains to be seen if enough Republicans in the Senate will also support this effort to give the legislation the chance to receive 60 votes to bypass the filibuster and whether House Republicans will take up similar legislation.

CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of further developments related to federal minimum wage laws.

Share This Article:

Source link

June 24, 2025
House Passes Reconciliation Bill With “No Tax on Overtime” Proposal – CUPA-HR
by CUPA-HR | June 17, 2025

On May 22, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1, titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Notably, the reconciliation “megabill” includes a provision to implement President Trump’s campaign pledge on “no tax on overtime,” among various legislative priorities for Republicans.

The “No Tax on Overtime” Proposal

The overtime proposal creates a temporary above-the-line deduction from gross income for overtime pay required under the Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA). The bill does not set a cap on the amount of overtime pay that can be deducted, but it limits the application of the provision to employees who earn less than $160,000 per year, and it does not extend the deduction to independent contractors. If signed into law, the deduction will be available for tax years 2025 through 2028, and employers would be required to report overtime compensation on workers’ W-2 forms during this time.

The proposed deduction only applies to workers’ federal income taxes and overtime pay as required by the FLSA, raising some compliance concerns for employers in states with different overtime pay requirements than those required under the FLSA and for employers whose overtime pay requirements are set by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with overtime pay that differs from the FLSA requirements. These employers will likely need to track both the FLSA-mandated overtime hours and pay to ensure workers’ W-2s are accurate and in compliance with the law while also ensuring they are tracking the overtime hours and pay in a manner that also complies with the more stringent state or CBA obligations.

While CBA requirements vary case-by-case, there are five states with overtime pay requirements under their state wage and hour laws that differ from the requirements under the FLSA:

Alaska requires 1.5 times workers’ regular rate of pay for hours worked beyond 8 in a day or 40 in a workweek;

California requires 1.5 times an employee’s regular rate of pay for hours worked more than 8 in a day, 40 in a workweek, or the first 8 hours on a seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek. The state also requires double an employee’s regular rate of pay for any hours worked over 12 in a day or for all hours worked over 8 on a seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek;

Colorado requires overtime pay after 12 hours worked in a day or 40 hours in a workweek;

Nevada requires overtime pay for any hours worked beyond 8 in a day if the employee earns less than 1.5 times the state minimum wage; and

Oregon has industry-specific daily overtime rules that apply to hospitals, canneries and manufacturers.

Looking Ahead

The reconciliation bill is still early in the legislative process. For now, the “no tax on overtime” provision is only included in the House version of the bill. The Senate is currently drafting its version of the reconciliation bill, and they may choose to alter the no tax on overtime proposal — possibly including language of the Overtime Wages Tax Relief Act that was introduced earlier this year by Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS). CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for further developments on this issue.

Share This Article:
Source link
June 17, 2025
HR and the Courts — June 2025 – CUPA-HR

by CUPA-HR | June 10, 2025

Each month, CUPA-HR General Counsel Ira Shepard provides an overview of several labor and employment law cases and regulatory actions with implications for the higher ed workplace. Here’s the latest from Ira.

Federal Court Allows Nationwide Class Action Alleging AI Age Discrimination To Proceed

A federal court recently ruled that Workday’s artificial intelligence scoring algorithm for screening job applicants meets the standard to conclude that it may violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in discriminating against older job applicants. The court ruled that the nationwide class action may proceed (Mobley v. Workday (N.D. Cal. 3:23-cv-00770, 5/16/25)).

While the court has not yet ruled on other allegations, the lawsuit also alleged that the algorithm has an unlawful disparate impact based on race and disability. President Trump has instructed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice not to prosecute disparate impact cases, but this executive order does not apply to private lawsuits or state equal employment opportunity laws.

Conflicting Federal Court Decisions on President Trump’s Executive Order Involving Mass Layoffs and Office Closings at the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights

On May 22, 2025, a federal court judge in Massachusetts issued a broad injunction prohibiting the mass layoffs and office closings at the Department of Education. The judge ordered the administration to reinstate all laid-off employees, and carry out all duties mandated by U.S. law, including managing student loans, aiding state educational programs and enforcing civil rights laws. The judge ruled that the personnel cuts would likely “cripple the department.” The judge concluded that the president lacked the power to effectively dissolve a federal agency created by Congress by getting rid of employees, closing offices and transferring duties to other agencies (Somerville Public Schools v. Trump (D. Mass. 25-cv-10667, 5/22/25)). The Trump administration will appeal the decision. Learn more.

The day before, on May 21, 2025, a federal court judge in Washington, D.C. denied a private lawsuit to enjoin President Trump’s executive order, which resulted in placing nearly half of the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) staff on administrative leave and closing seven of the OCR’s 12 regional offices. The lawsuit was brought by a group of parents and students and the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates. The judge denied the request for a temporary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs lacked appropriate standing to sue and were unlikely to prevail on the merits (Carter v. United States Department of Education (D.D.C. No. 1:25-cv-007044, 5/21/25)).

Presidential Executive Order Disfavors Criminal Enforcement of Federal Agency Rules

An executive order signed by President Trump on May 9, 2025, advised all federal agencies that they should consider civil rather than criminal enforcement of their regulations. This could have a significant impact on the enforcement of federal laws and regulations in the HR field. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) all have an optional criminal enforcement capability, which is in addition to the standard civil enforcement typically pursued by the Department of Labor. The executive order also stated that agencies should avoid imposing a “strict liability” standard to their rules. Strict liability allows the government to pursue a person or entity in a situation regardless of intent.

The executive order also requires all agencies to, within one year, provide the Department of Justice with a list of criminal regulatory offenses they are enforcing and the range of the criminal penalties for violation.

Teacher Loses First Amendment Case Against School District After Firing

A federal court recently ruled that the Unified Oakland School Board was immune from a lawsuit by a kindergarten teacher who refused to call a student by the pronouns they use, despite the student’s and parents’ wishes. The teacher claimed that to do so was inconsistent with her religious beliefs and to require her to do so violated her First Amendment right to freedom of religion. The school district had offered the plaintiff several accommodations before termination, including the option to call the student by their first name. The plaintiff refused and was ultimately terminated.

The court dismissed the claim against the school district on sovereign immunity grounds and against individual officials on qualified immunity grounds (Ramirez v. Oakland Unified School District et al. (2025 BL 181443 N.D. Cal., No. 24-cv-09223, LB, 5/27/25)). The plaintiff was given 28 days to file an amended complaint against individual defendants.

The judge also dismissed the teacher’s First Amendment free speech claim, holding that her refusal to use the pronoun the student uses was not protected free speech.

Harvard Wins Temporary Reprieve From Presidential Executive Order Banning Its International Students From Entering the United States

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) barring the government from enforcing a presidential executive order which would have banned Harvard from continuing to enroll foreign students. The judge ruled that it would cause Harvard irreparable harm and issued the TRO barring enforcement of the executive order and ordering that a hearing be held on the issue on June 16, 2025 (Harvard v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (25-cv-11472, U.S. D Ct. Maa. (Boston) 6/5/25)).

The TRO will be in effect until the June 16, 2025, hearing when the court will hear arguments over whether to extend the injunction. Learn more.

NCAA and Power Five Conferences $2.8 Billion Settlement Proposal of Antitrust, NIL Suit Approved by Federal Judge

On June 7, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilkens of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved the proposed NCAA and Power Five conferences (the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC) settlement of the antitrust lawsuit brought against them for not allowing college athletes to receive payments for name, image and likeness (NIL) related to their college sports status. The judge approved a $2.8 billion settlement proposal to be distributed among student-athletes playing during the 2016-2024 seasons. In addition, the colleges are allowed to share up to 22% of revenue received annually from athletic programs with college athletes — capped at $20.5 million a year — going forward for 10 years. The cap will be adjusted upward by 4% during the first two years of the agreement.

It is estimated that, of the $20.5 million annual cap, about 90% will go to football players and about 10% will go to male basketball players. In addition, NIL payments made by boosters and other sports-related entities are subject to outside review by the accounting firm Deloitte.

Because of the unprecedented and fast-changing pronouncements of the new presidential administration and the intervening court challenges, the developments contained in this blog post are subject to change. Before acting on the legal issues discussed here, please consult your college or university counsel and, as always, act with caution.

Share This Article:

Source link

June 10, 2025
Court Approves Final Settlement Allowing Revenue Sharing Between Higher Ed Institutions and College Athletes – CUPA-HR

by CUPA-HR | June 9, 2025

On June 6, a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved a settlement in House v. NCAA, which will allow higher education institutions to share revenue with student-athletes directly.

The settlement creates a 10-year revenue-sharing model that will allow the athletic departments of the higher education institutions in the Power Five conferences (the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC) and any other Division I institutions that opt in to distribute approximately $20.5 million in name, image, and likeness (NIL) revenue during the 2025-2026 season. The revenue-sharing cap will increase annually and be calculated as 22.5% of the Power Five schools’ average athletic revenue. The settlement also includes an enforcement arm to penalize institutions that exceed the $20.5 million cap, which will be overseen by a new regulatory body, the College Sports Commission. Institutions can start to share revenue beginning on July 1, 2025.

Additionally, the settlement requires the NCAA and Power Five conferences to pay approximately $2.8 billion in damages to Division I athletes who were barred from signing NIL deals. This covers athletes dating back to 2016. It also replaces scholarship limits with roster limits.

The settlement does not change college athletes’ ability to enter into NIL contracts with third parties, but under the settlement, all outside NIL deals valued at greater than $600 will have to go through a clearinghouse for approval. The clearinghouse will determine if the revenue is for a valid business purpose and if it reflects fair market value.

Prior to this settlement, college athletes could only earn NIL revenue through partnerships with outside parties, such as companies or donor groups. The original case, House v. NCAA, was brought by two former college athletes in June 2020. They challenged the NCAA’s then-policy that prohibited athletes from earning NIL compensation. The case was consolidated with Carter v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA, two similar cases. None of the cases ever made it to trial. Instead, in an effort to avoid higher damages, the NCAA and Power Five conferences agreed to a settlement in May 2024, and the court granted preliminary approval in October 2024.

As NCAA President Charlie Baker explained in a letter, the settlement “opens a pathway to begin stabilizing college sports. This new framework that enables schools to provide direct financial benefits to student-athletes and establishes clear and specific rules to regulate third-party NIL agreements marks a huge step forward for college sports.”

CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of updates related to this settlement and the future of student-athletics.

Share This Article:

Source link

June 9, 2025
Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Burden for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Cases – CUPA-HR

by CUPA-HR | June 5, 2025

On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that plaintiffs bringing employment discrimination claims under Title VII cannot be held to a higher evidentiary standard simply because they belong to a majority group. The decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services resolves a long-standing split among federal appeals courts over how such “reverse discrimination” claims should be evaluated.

Background

Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, has worked at the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. In 2019, after being passed over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian woman and later demoted from her existing role, Ames filed suit alleging that both decisions were based on her sex and sexual orientation — protected characteristics under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Lower courts dismissed her claims. Applying a test used in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and several others, they held that Ames, as a member of a majority group, was required to present additional “background circumstances” — such as evidence that the employer had a pattern of discriminating against majority-group employees — in order to move forward with her case.

The Court’s Reasoning

Writing for the Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson rejected that reasoning, emphasizing that Title VII’s protections apply equally to all individuals. She wrote that the law “draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,” and instead “focuses on individuals rather than groups, barring discrimination against ‘any individual’ because of protected characteristics.”

The court found that the so-called “background circumstances” rule used by the lower courts added an impermissible hurdle for plaintiffs like Ames. In the ruling, the Supreme Court found that such an approach “cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents,” citing the court’s 1971 opinion in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., which held that “discriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed.”

The justices also noted that the rule adopted by the 6th Circuit conflicted with the court’s guidance to avoid rigid applications of Title VII’s burden-shifting framework, known as the McDonnell Douglas test. That framework is intended to provide a flexible method for proving discrimination based on circumstantial evidence — not to impose categorical rules based on a plaintiff’s demographic status.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, wrote separately to question the broader use of the McDonnell Douglas framework altogether. He criticized the reliance on “judge-made rules and standards in the discrimination context” and suggested that the framework “lacks basis in the statutory text” of Title VII. While the court did not revisit that framework in the Ames decision, Justice Thomas’s opinion invites further litigation on its continued use.

What’s Next

The decision eliminates the requirement previously used in the 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th and D.C. Circuits that majority-group plaintiffs must meet an elevated evidentiary threshold to proceed with their claims. Instead, all Title VII plaintiffs must satisfy the same standard, regardless of their group status.

By aligning with the plain text of Title VII and affirming that its protections apply equally to all individuals, the decision in Ames may affect how courts approach other claims involving workplace diversity and inclusion efforts. CUPA-HR is continuing to review the decision and will provide additional updates as the implications for campus employers and HR professionals become clearer.

Share This Article:

Source link

June 5, 2025
Presidential Proclamation Suspends Entry of Foreign Nationals Seeking to Enroll at Harvard – CUPA-HR
by CUPA-HR | June 5, 2025

On June 4, 2025, President Trump issued a presidential proclamation suspending the entry of foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States to begin a course of study, conduct research or participate in an exchange visitor program at Harvard University. The proclamation invokes sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and is set to expire six months from the date of issuance unless extended.

This action follows the Department of Homeland Security’s May 22, 2025, announcement terminating Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification. That earlier DHS action is currently under a temporary restraining order issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Key Provisions

The proclamation suspends and limits entry for foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States on F, M or J visas in order to begin study or participate in a program at Harvard University.

The suspension applies only to new entrants seeking to begin a course of study or program at Harvard on or after the date of the proclamation.

The suspension does not apply to foreign nationals enrolled at other institutions, nor does it apply automatically to current Harvard students already in the United States.

The secretary of state may consider whether current Harvard students in F, M or J status should have their visas revoked under the Immigration and Nationality Act §221(i).

Exceptions may be granted if the secretary of state or secretary of homeland security determines that a particular individual’s entry would be in the national interest.

A review is required within 90 days to assess whether the suspension should be extended or modified.

The proclamation also directs federal agencies to consider additional operational steps, including potential limitations on Harvard’s continued participation in SEVP and the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVIS). It references recordkeeping and reporting obligations under existing regulations and states that these obligations are necessary to support national security and immigration enforcement.

CUPA-HR will monitor for additional updates on this and related developments.

Share This Article:
Source link
June 5, 2025
President Issues Proclamation Restricting Entry of Foreign Nationals From 19 Countries – CUPA-HR
by CUPA-HR | June 5, 2025

On June 4, 2025, President Trump issued a presidential proclamation titled “Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.” The proclamation, citing national security concerns, suspends or limits entry into the United States for certain foreign nationals from 19 countries identified as having inadequate screening and information-sharing practices. The restrictions take effect on Monday, June 9, 2025.

This proclamation implements directives from Executive Order 14161, issued on January 20, 2025, which stated that it is U.S. policy to deny entry to foreign nationals who may pose national security or public safety threats. That order required federal agencies to review global vetting practices and recommend countries for entry restrictions based on insufficient identity management or cooperation.

Following that review, the secretary of state, in consultation with the attorney general, secretary of homeland security and director of national intelligence, recommended entry restrictions on foreign nationals from 19 countries.

Countries Affected

The proclamation imposes:
- Full entry suspensions (both immigrant and nonimmigrant visas) for nationals of: Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.
- Partial entry suspensions (specific visa types, including B-1/B-2 and F/M/J visas) for nationals of: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.
The administration cites overstay rates, lack of cooperation in accepting removable nationals, and terrorist activity or governance instability as justification.

Exemptions and Waivers

The proclamation includes a number of exemptions, including lawful permanent residents of the United States; dual nationals traveling on a passport from a non-restricted country; holders of certain visa categories such as diplomatic, NATO, and adoption-related visas; immediate family-based immigrant visa applicants with verified relationships; and Special Immigrant Visa recipients, including Afghan and U.S. government employees. Also exempt are individuals traveling to participate in major international sporting events — such as the World Cup or Olympics — including athletes, coaches, support staff and immediate relatives, subject to determination by the secretary of state.

In addition, case-by-case waivers may be granted if the secretary of state or attorney general determines that the individual’s travel would serve a critical U.S. national interest, including participation in legal proceedings or for humanitarian reasons.

This action reflects a return to policies implemented during President Trump’s first term. In 2017, the administration issued an executive order restricting entry from several predominantly Muslim countries. The order was revised multiple times following legal challenges and was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018). The Biden administration reversed the policy on its first day in office in 2021.

The partial suspensions affect several nonimmigrant visa categories common in higher education, including F (students), M (vocational students), and J (exchange visitors) from the listed countries. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor developments related to this proclamation and its potential implications.

Share This Article:
Source link
June 5, 2025
Department of Labor Announces Opinion Letter Program – CUPA-HR

by CUPA-HR | June 4, 2025

On June 2, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced the launch of its opinion letter program across five agencies, including the Wage and Hour Division (WHD), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).

Opinion letters are intended to provide compliance assistance to workers, employers and other stakeholders to better understand how relevant federal labor laws apply in workplace situations. They serve as each agency’s official written interpretations of federal laws and how they apply to specific circumstances presented by individuals or organizations.

The agencies listed above have published opinion letters and similar guidance in the past. Notably, WHD has issued several opinion letters regarding the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), covering issues such as worker classification, compensable hours for telework travel time, and the intersection of paid leave under the FMLA and state and local paid leave laws. WHD has also issued several opinion letters on regular rate of pay for overtime calculations. OSHA has issued “Letters of Interpretation” that cover a range of worksite health and safety issues, and EBSA published advisory opinions and information letters regarding employer-provided health and retirement benefits plans.

To support their opinion letter program, DOL announced a new landing page that allows individuals to seek out past guidance from each agency and to submit new requests for opinion letters to the appropriate agency. CUPA-HR will monitor for relevant opinion letters released by DOL and keep members apprised of enforcement updates by the agencies.

Share This Article:

Source link

June 4, 2025
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Actions to Dismantle Department of Education – CUPA-HR

by CUPA-HR | May 29, 2025

On May 22, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction to block the Trump administration from taking action to close the Department of Education (ED). Specifically, the court order blocks the Trump administration from “carrying out the reduction-in-force” at ED previously announced and from implementing the executive order directing the secretary of education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.”

Several Democrat-led states, school districts and teachers unions filed lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s reduction in force (RIF) at the department, arguing that the RIF would prohibit ED from carrying out its statutory functions. In the order enjoining the Trump administration from enforcing its RIF, the federal judge sided with the plaintiffs, granting the preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs “have shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the form of financial uncertainty and delay damaging student education … impeded access to vital knowledge upon which students, districts, and educators rely, and … loss of essential services provided by the office of Federal Student Aid and the Office for Civil Rights.”

As a result of the preliminary injunction, the Trump administration and ED are blocked from carrying out the reduction in force and implementing the order to close the department. The administration is also blocked from reinstating the reduction in force and executive order under a different name. ED is also directed to reinstate federal employees who were terminated or eliminated on or after January 20, 2025, as part of the RIF, and the Department of Education and the administration are required to file a status report describing the steps they have taken to comply with the order.

Soon after the preliminary injunction was issued, the Trump administration filed an appeal to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Further decisions are pending, and CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for updates from the appeals court.

Share This Article:

Source link

May 29, 2025