![Protecting Every Marketing Dollar: How Collegis Helped Block $2.2M in Ad Waste with CHEQ [CASE STUDY]](https://blog.college-counseling.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Protecting-Every-Marketing-Dollar-How-Collegis-Helped-Block-22M-in.png)
CHEQ is trusted by more than 15,000 companies — from the Fortune 50 to emerging disruptors — to enable and protect each critical touchpoint in the evolving, human-AI customer journey. Powered by the only integrated Traffic, Threat, and Identity Intelligence Engine, CHEQ distinguishes legitimate users from bad actors — human, AI agent, or bot — and, in real-time, delivers granular, context-specific insights to marketing, commerce, and security platforms. With a best-in-class
Tag: block
-
US Chamber sues White House to block ‘plainly unlawful’ H-1B visa fee
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.Dive Brief:
- President Donald Trump’s proclamation placing a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas is a “plainly unlawful” expansion of executive authority that violates the Administrative Procedure Act and federal immigration laws, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce alleged in a lawsuit Thursday.
- Chamber of Commerce v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, et. al. is at least the second such lawsuit against the fee proclamation, following a separate filing earlier this month by plaintiffs in California. The Chamber claimed the fee would “inflict significant harm on American businesses” and render the H-1B program economically unviable for many.
- The Chamber asked the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to enjoin the fee requirement and vacate any agency actions taken to implement it. A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
Dive Insight:
The lawsuit is an immediate follow-up to the Chamber’s statement last month calling on the Trump administration to withdraw its fee proclamation. In that statement, the organization said Trump’s move could impede economic growth as well as domestic job creation by incentivizing employers to move some business functions overseas.
A Chamber press release Thursday reiterated those concerns. Neil Bradley, the organization’s executive vice president and chief policy officer, credited the administration with “securing our nation’s border” while warning of the need for H-1B visas to support growth and attract global talent.
The fee caught employers by surprise when it was announced in September, particularly so for those in the technology sector, where H-1B visas are routinely sought to staff highly-skilled positions in mathematics, computer science and similar fields. But the fee’s effects could be felt in other fields, including higher and K-12 education, plaintiffs in the California lawsuit alleged.
New guidance from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued Monday appeared to give the higher education sector some relief, however. It said that the new fee wouldn’t apply to those who are inside the U.S. and “requesting an amendment, change of status, or extension of stay.” That means international students who recently graduated and have H-1B sponsorship wouldn’t be subject to it, Bloomberg Law reported.
Trump has touted the fee — which applies prospectively only to H-1B visa petitions filed on or after Sept. 21, 2025, — as a necessary measure to combat “systemic abuse” of the program by employers in an effort to artificially suppress wages while reducing job opportunities for U.S. citizens.
The Chamber directly addressed this point in its lawsuit, conceding that while abuse of the H-1B program is a serious issue, Congress considered this problem when creating the program and authorized the executive to take certain measures to prevent and remediate such abuse.
For example, the Chamber noted that Congress twice imposed a temporary $4,000 surcharge fee on certain employers with a high proportion of H-1B visa holders. It also implemented a regulatory framework, the Labor Condition Application, requiring employers seeking H-1B employees to certify that the positions offered to such candidates meet criteria outlined by Congress. The legislature gave the president the authority to enforce such requirements by issuing fines as well as bans on filing future H-1B petitions.
“What Congress did not authorize is disincentivizing the use of the program by imposing a fee many times the amount of fees set by Congress,” the Chamber said.
Separately, the organization echoed an argument used by the California plaintiffs in alleging that the fee is arbitrary and capricious and was not submitted to notice-and-comment rulemaking as required under the APA.
The lawsuits against the fee add to employers’ confusion in the aftermath of the proclamation. Sources previously told HR Dive that businesses have since been left to parse just how to pay the fee or how it will apply to visa petitioners who are already physically present in the U.S.
Editor’s note: Natalie Schwartz, senior editor at Higher Ed Dive, contributed to this story.
-
HHS Looks to Block Harvard From Federal Funds
Harvard is facing increasing pressure from the Trump administration after winning back its frozen grants in court.
Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights announced Monday that it’s moving to cut off Harvard University’s eligibility to receive federal funding.
The announcement comes amid a power struggle between Harvard and the White House.
While the Trump administration has accused Harvard of allowing antisemitism to run amok on campus—and the university has acknowledged concerns on the front—it has sought sweeping power over the institution and changes that go beyond addressing antisemitism. The HHS Office for Civil Rights previously found that Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on race, color and national origin, and acted with “deliberate indifference toward discrimination and harassment against Jewish and Israeli students,” according to an HHS news release.
Now HHS OCR has recommended cutting off federal funding to Harvard “to protect the public interest” through a suspension and debarment process operated by the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources. Suspension would be temporary and debarment would last “for a specified period as a final determination that an entity is not responsible enough to do business with the federal government because of the wrongdoing,” according to the agency. The move comes less than two weeks after the Education Department placed Harvard on heightened cash monitoring—a highly unusual move given the university’s significant resources.
Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
“OCR’s referral of Harvard for formal administrative proceedings reflects OCR’s commitment to safeguard both taxpayer investments and the broader public interest,” HHS OCR director Paula M. Stannard said in a statement. “Congress has empowered federal agencies to pursue Title VI compliance through formal enforcement mechanisms, including the termination of funding or denial of future federal financial assistance, when voluntary compliance cannot be achieved.”
Harvard has 20 days to request a hearing in front of an HHS administrative law judge, who will decide whether the university violated Title VI.
Monday’s announcement is the latest salvo by the federal government after Harvard emerged initially victorious in a legal battle over more than $2 billion in frozen federal research funding. While a judge ruled that the Trump administration illegally froze funds granted to Harvard, the federal government has continued to pressure the private institution to make changes to disciplinary processes, admissions, hiring and more. Other Ivy League institutions, such as Columbia University and Brown University, have agreed to such deals, under federal scrutiny.
-
Federal judge declines to block Alabama anti-DEI law
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.Dive Brief:
- A federal judge declined to temporarily block the enforcement of a state law that bans public colleges from funding diversity, equity and inclusion programs and from compelling students to affirm certain “divisive concepts.”
- Earlier this year, a group of students and faculty members sued the state’s governor and the University of Alabama’s trustees over the new law, arguing that it violates their free speech rights by placing viewpoint-based restrictions on what can be taught in the classroom. They also contended that the law undermines due process by being so ambiguous that instructors and students don’t know what is prohibited.
- U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor — a George W. Bush appointee — pushed back on those arguments in his 146-page ruling Wednesday. Proctor denied their request for a preliminary injunction, writing that public colleges could reasonably control curricular content and rejecting assertions that the law’s language is impermissibly vague.
Dive Insight:
Last year, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a law known as SB 129, which bans public colleges and K-12 schools from having DEI initiatives. It defined those efforts as programs, training or other events where attendance is based on “race, sex, gender identity, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation.”
PEN America noted last year that while this language doesn’t outright ban all DEI initiatives, the attendance restrictions could bar public colleges from activities like creating programming specifically for international students or recognizing a Black student union.
The law also barred public colleges from requiring students to affirm or adhere to a list of so-called divisive concepts.
Under the law, one of the concepts is that individuals “are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.” Another is that people are “inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously” based on their personal characteristics.
The law also contains carve-outs. It says that the language does not bar public colleges from teaching or discussing divisive concepts “in an objective manner and without endorsement as part of a larger course of academic instruction.”
According to court documents, faculty members who sued over the measure said that while they do not require students to affirm or adhere to these concepts, they worry that their instruction on race and gender could be viewed as running afoul of the law — even with the carve-outs for teaching.
“I do not know what it means to discuss a divisive concept ‘in an objective manner’ and ‘without endorsement,’” plaintiff Cassandra Simon, a social work professor at University of Alabama, said in court documents. “There is robust empirical evidence of implicit bias, white privilege, and the absence of a colorblind meritocracy. I am unable to determine whether continuing to present these scholarly findings, and assigning readings on these subjects, would violate SB 129.”
One of Simon’s class assignments — that students select a social issue of their choice and advocate for it — was abruptly canceled due to the law, according to court documents.
Her students chose to hold a sit-in to protest SB 129 for their project. The day of the sit-in, however, the social work dean told Simon to cancel the assignment in part over concerns that it would compel students to agree with one of the banned divisive concepts.
Another plaintiff raised concerns over teaching about topics such as structural racism, employment discrimination and health disparities by race. And another voiced concerns that the law potentially limits his ability to teach about eugenics.
However, Proctor wrote in his ruling that the law doesn’t prohibit the teaching of divisive concepts and pointed to the carve-outs provided.
The judge also cited an appeals court case that found a public college could “reasonably control the content of its curriculum, particularly that content imparted during class time.”
“There is no legal basis for concluding that the First Amendment protects a university professor’s academic freedom in the way the Professors suggest,” Proctor wrote.
Referring to the canceled sit-in, Proctor wrote that it was “a reasonable exercise of control over course curriculum to ensure that students would not feel coerced into advocating for a belief with which they disagreed.”
Proctor also dismissed Ivey as a defendant in the case, ruling that plaintiffs’ alleged injuries aren’t traceable to her.
The plaintiffs in the case slammed the decision on Thursday.
“SB129 created a culture of fear that has severely hindered the ability of professors to provide comprehensive instruction in our areas of expertise,” Dana Patton, a University of Alabama professor and plaintiff in the case, said in a statement. “The law infringes on our academic freedom and our duty to students to provide a truthful and comprehensive education.”
Alabama state Sen. Will Barfoot, the sponsor of the legislation, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
-
China Select Committee Launches AI Campaign with Legislation to Block CCP-Linked AI from U.S. Government Use
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 25, 2025
Contact:
WASHINGTON, D.C. — As the House Select Committee on the China opens its landmark hearing, “Authoritarians and Algorithms: Why U.S. AI Must Lead,” Committee leaders are unveiling new bipartisan legislation to confront the CCP’s growing exploitation of artificial intelligence.
Chairman John Moolenaar (R-MI) and Ranking Member Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) today announced the House introduction of the “No Adversarial AI Act”— bipartisan legislation also being championed in the Senate by Senators Rick Scott (R-FL) and Gary Peters (D-MI). The bill would prohibit U.S. executive agencies from acquiring or using artificial intelligence developed by companies tied to foreign adversaries like the Chinese Communist Party. The House legislation is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Select Committee members, including Reps. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) and Darin LaHood (R-IL).
“We are in a new Cold War—and AI is the strategic technology at the center,” said Chairman Moolenaar. “The CCP doesn’t innovate—it steals, scales, and subverts. From IP theft and chip smuggling to embedding AI in surveillance and military platforms, the Chinese Communist Party is racing to weaponize this technology. We must draw a clear line: U.S. government systems cannot be powered by tools built to serve authoritarian interests.”
What the No Adversarial AI Act Does:
- Creates a public list of AI systems developed by foreign adversaries, maintained and updated by the Federal Acquisition Security Council.
- Prohibits executive agencies from acquiring or using adversary-developed AI—except in narrow cases such as research, counterterrorism, or mission-critical needs.
- Establishes a delisting process for companies that can demonstrate they are free from foreign adversary control or influence.
“Artificial intelligence controlled by foreign adversaries poses a direct threat to our national security, our data, and our government operations,” said Ranking Member Raja Krishnamoorthi. “We cannot allow hostile regimes to embed their code in our most sensitive systems. This bipartisan legislation will create a clear firewall between foreign adversary AI and the U.S. government, protecting our institutions and the American people. Chinese, Russian, and other adversary AI systems simply do not belong on government devices, and certainly shouldn’t be entrusted with government data.”
Senator Rick Scott said, “The Communist Chinese regime will use any means necessary to spy, steal, and undermine the United States, and as AI technology advances, we must do more to protect our national security and stop adversarial regimes from using technology against us. With clear evidence that China can have access to U.S. user data on AI systems, it’s absolutely insane for our own federal agencies to be using these dangerous platforms and subject our government to Beijing’s control. Our No Adversarial AI Act will stop this direct threat to our national security and keep the American government’s sensitive data out of enemy hands.”
The legislation marks a major action in the Select Committee’s AI campaign, which aims to secure U.S. AI supply chains, enforce robust export controls, and ensure American innovation does not fuel authoritarian surveillance or military systems abroad.
Today’s hearing and legislation continues the series of new proposals and messaging the Committee will roll out this summer to confront the CCP’s exploitation of U.S. innovation and prevent American technology from fueling Beijing’s AI ambitions.
-
Federal Judge Won’t Block Trump’s Cuts to IES
A federal district judge declined to issue an injunction that would block the Trump administration’s recent cuts to staff and contracts at the Institute of Education Sciences—an agency charged with collecting and analyzing data about both K–12 and higher education.
In an opinion released last week, Maryland judge Stephanie A. Gallagher acknowledged that the new administration has terminated 90 percent of the agency’s staff and therefore IES “is not doing a number of tasks Congress requires of it.” Gallagher, a Trump appointee, also empathized with the two education research associations that filed the lawsuit—the American Educational Research Association and the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness—saying she trusts that not receiving the data they expected from IES “will harm them.”
But that does not mean the plaintiffs have a strong enough case to stop the Trump administration from continuing to dismantle the agency. Gallagher said that the associations’ arguments are at times too broad or too narrow, that they lump together numerous cuts—some of which may be justified—and that they include “factual discrepancies” and improper interpretations of “no fewer than a dozen statutes.”
Over all, she said, “They have not shown they are entitled to this sort of extraordinary relief.”
“These Plaintiffs have alleged, and have provided some evidence to support, a troubling pattern of conduct at IES,” Gallagher wrote. “But because they cannot make the requisite showings on the preliminary injunction factors, and in particular have not shown they have standing to seek the relief they are asking for, their motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied.”
This ruling is not final, however, and “should not be taken as predictive of this Court’s ultimate decision,” Gallagher added.
But the Education Department is already walking back some of the IES cuts, according to court filings in the lawsuit that The Hechinger Report first reported on. Department officials disclosed earlier this month that they are reinstating at least 20 out of the 101 contracts that were terminated. The restored contracts include one that requires the National Center for Education Statistics to participate in the Program for International Student Assessment. (According to Hechinger, Congress mandates that the department take part in international assessments.)
SREE president Elizabeth Tipton told Hechinger that the limited reversal was “upsetting” and not enough to fix the problem.
“They’re trying to make IES as small as they possibly can,” she said.
-
courts intensify effort to block Trump’s int’l enrolment ban
- District judge moves to take out an injunction on Trump administration’s Harvard international enrolment ban while the case moves through the legal system.
- University’s international students report “emotional distress” as many cancel travel plans over fears they will not be allowed back into the US.
- US Department of Homeland Security boss accuses Harvard of “disdain” for American people and spreading hate.
Following on from her decision last week to temporarily block the move, district judge Allison Burroughs told a packed court that she wanted to “maintain the status quo” while Harvard’s case works its way through the legal system.
It’s the latest twist in the university’s ongoing battle with the Trump administration, which has accused it of anti-semitism and stripped it of billions of dollars in funding. For its part, Harvard is coming out swinging against the directive, swiftly mounting a legal challenge – the latest step of which culminated in Burroughs’ judgement in a hearing yesterday.
In court documents filed ahead of the hearing, Harvard’s director of immigration services at the institution’s international office, Maureen Martin, detailed the toll that the administration’s announcement is taking on the campus’s international students.
She wrote that the revocation notice has caused both students and faculty to express “profound fear, concern, and confusion” – with the university “inundated” with queries from worried international students.
“Many international students and scholars are reporting significant emotional distress that is affecting their mental health and making it difficult to focus on their studies,” said Martin, adding that some are too afraid to attend their own graduation ceremonies this week in case immigration-related action is taken against them.
Meanwhile, others are cancelling international travel plans over concerns they will not be able to re-enter the US. “Some fear being compelled to return
abruptly to home countries where they might not be safe due to ongoing conflicts or where they could face persecution based on their identity or background,” Martin wrote.Many international students and scholars are reporting significant emotional distress that is affecting their mental health and making it difficult to focus on their studies
Maureen Martin, Harvard UniversityWhile US stakeholders may be breathing a sigh of relief at Harvard’s temporary reprieve, Donald Trump’s government is showing no signs of backing down.
In a letter sent to Harvard before Thursday’s hearing, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirmed that it wanted to move ahead with revoking the university’s SEVP certification, which would mean it could no longer host international students. Notably, though, the letter did not repeat last week’s assertion that Harvard would have 30 days to challenge the decision and suggested the government would not look to immediately enact the directive.
In a statement released yesterday, US secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, doubled down on accusations that Harvard has not complied with SEVP regulations, has “encouraged and allowed anti-semitic and anti-American violence to rage on its campus” and has been working with the Chinese Communist Party.
“Harvard’s refusal to comply with SEVP oversight was the latest evidence that it disdains the American people and takes for granted US taxpayer benefits,” she said. “Following our letter to Harvard, the school attempted to claim it now wishes to comply with SEVP standards. We continue to reject Harvard’s repeated pattern of endangering its students and spreading American hate – it must change its ways in order to participate in American programs.”
Harvard’s row with the Trump administration stems from the stand it took against a raft of government demands, including that it reform its admissions and hiring practices to combat antisemitism on campus, end DEI initiatives and hand over reports on international students.
When the institution refused to comply with the demands, the government – seemingly in retaliation – froze $2.2 billion in the university’s funding, threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status, and demanded that international students’ records be handed over. If Harvard didn’t play ball, it was warned, it risked losing its SEVP certification.
Although Harvard did send over some student information on April 30, and maintained that it had provided the information it was legally bound to supply, this seems to have been insufficient for the Trump administration, which then moved to black the institution from hosting international students.
In yet another blow to the US international education sector, the US government announced this week that it would pause all new study visa interviews at American consulates around the world – sparking dismay from stakeholders.
And Chinese students studying in the US were plunged into uncertainty yesterday after – amid a trade war with Beijing – the government announced plans to “aggressively revoke” their visas. As yet, it remains unclear whether all Chinese students will be affected or just those with links to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in so-called key areas.
-
Judge Keeps Block on Harvard International Student Ban
The Trump administration still won’t be able to prevent Harvard University from enrolling international students after a federal judge decided Thursday to keep a temporary restraining order in place.
The hearing before Judge Allison Burroughs in Massachusetts District Court came a week after the Department of Homeland Security revoked Harvard’s ability to enroll international students and required those currently at the university to transfer. Harvard quickly sued to block that decision, and Burroughs granted a temporary restraining order May 23.
Harvard argued in the lawsuit that the administration violated the First Amendment and the university’s due process rights with the abrupt revocation. In an apparent effort to address Harvard’s concerns, the administration said ahead of the hearing that it would go through a more formal administrative process to decertify Harvard from the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. According to the notice filed in court Thursday morning, Harvard has 30 days to respond to the claims that it failed to comply with certain reporting requirements and to maintain a campus free from discrimination as well as “practices with foreign entities raising national security concerns.”
But while that process continues, Burroughs wants to maintain the status quo for Harvard, which means that international students can remain at the university. She plans to eventually issue a preliminary injunction, the next step after a temporary restraining order.
Burroughs said an order would give “some protection to international students who might be anxious about coming here or anxious about remaining here once they are here,” The Boston Globe reported.
The government lawyers argued in the hearing that an order wasn’t necessary because of the new notice. But Harvard’s lawyer Ian Heath Gershengorn countered that “we want to make sure there are no shenanigans” while Harvard challenges the Trump administration’s action.
And despite Burroughs’s quick restraining order, current and prospective international students at Harvard have faced disruptions.
Maureen Martin, director of immigration services in the Harvard International Office, wrote in a court filing that students scheduled to travel to the United States in the fall found out by the morning of May 23 that their visa applications were denied. (The administration revoked Harvard’s certification May 22.)
“I am personally aware of at least ten international students or scholars whose visa applications were refused for ‘administrative processing’ immediately following the Revocation Notice,” Martin wrote, adding that none of the visa applications that were refused or revoked following the revocation have been approved or reinstated.
For example, when a visiting research scholar at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine tried to obtain a J-1 visa at the U.S. embassy in Prague on May 23, her visa application was rejected.
“The officer gave the scholar a slip that stated she had ‘been found ineligible for a nonimmigrant visa based on section 221(g) of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).’ The slip said, ‘In your case the following is required,’ and the consular officer checked the box marked ‘Other’ and handwrote, ‘SEVP Revocation / Harvard,’” Martin wrote.
Martin wrote that the Trump administration has caused “significant emotional distress” for current international students and raised a number of questions for either incoming or prospective students who are trying to assess their options. At least one student deferred admission for a year for visa-related reasons.
-
Trump Administration to Block Brown’s Federal Grants
The Trump administration plans to block $510 million in federal contracts and grants for Brown University in retaliation for the university’s alleged failure to address antisemitism on campus, The New York Times reported.
That makes Brown the fifth university to face such consequences, after Columbia, Penn, Harvard and Princeton.
The Daily Caller first reported the news, writing that “an administration official” said Brown’s grants “would be paused” while the government conducts a review of the university’s response to claims of antisemitism.
Brown provost Frank Doyle sent an email to campus leaders Thursday, acknowledging “troubling rumors emerging about federal action on Brown research grants,” but noting that they had received “no information to substantiate any of these rumors,” the Times reported.
Brown was among the 60 higher ed institutions to receive a letter last month from the Office for Civil Rights warning of “potential enforcement actions” if they failed to comply with federal antidiscrimination law.
After Columbia became the first institution to have its grants frozen, Brown president Christina Paxson issued a statement reiterating the university’s commitment to upholding both federal law and academic freedom. She noted that if Brown were prevented from performing “essential academic and operational functions, we would be compelled to vigorously exercise our legal rights to defend these freedoms, and true to our values, we would do so with integrity and respect.”
On Thursday night, leaders of the Brown Corporation and of Brown’s Jewish community, released a statement praising Brown’s commitment to Jewish students.
“Brown University is home to a vibrant Jewish community that continues to flourish with the steadfast support of the administration,” it read. “Amidst broader concerns about antisemitism on college campuses, Brown stands out as an inclusive environment where Jewish life is deeply integrated into campus culture.”
-
Teachers’ union sues to block Trump admin’s DEI guidance
The lawsuit comes after a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from carrying out parts of two executive orders cracking down on diversity, equity and inclusion.
Pete Kiehart/The Washington Post/Getty Images
A coalition of educators and sociologists is challenging the Department of Education and its unprecedented Dear Colleague letter—which declared all race-conscious student programming illegal—in a lawsuit filed late Tuesday evening.
The American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association argue in the complaint, which was submitted to a Maryland federal court, that following the letter’s dictates “will do a disservice to students and ultimately the nation by weakening schools as portals to opportunity.”
“This vague and clearly unconstitutional memo is a grave attack on students, our profession and knowledge itself … It would hamper efforts to extend access to education, and dash the promise of equal opportunity for all, a central tenet of the United States since its founding,” AFT president Randi Weingarten said in a statement. “It would upend campus life.”
The expected legal challenge came just three days before a Feb. 28 compliance deadline. The four-page guidance document says that colleges and universities must rescind any race-based policies, activities and resources by the end of the day or risk investigation and the loss of federal funding.
The department justifies its demands through a new interpretation of the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which banned the consideration of race in college admissions. Although the Supreme Court’s decision applied specifically to admissions, the Trump administration believes it extends to all race-conscious activities.
On Friday, a judge from the same federal court in Maryland issued a temporary injunction in a separate lawsuit that blocked parts of President Trump’s antidiversity executive orders.
But higher education legal experts say that the Dear Colleague letter and the executive orders, though similar, are independent levers, so the injunction doesn’t affect the department’s guidance. The Education Department has also said it is still moving forward with its interpretation of the law and the deadline stands.
So now all eyes are on this most recent court case, as higher education leaders wait to see if the judge will issue a second injunction and block the guidance.
“The Department of Education’s new policy, reflected in the February ‘Dear Colleague’ letter, seeks to undermine our nation’s educational institutions and is an unlawful attempt to impose this administration’s particular views,” said Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, the legal group representing the plaintiffs. “We will continue to pursue every legal opportunity to oppose and stop harmful attacks on freedom of expression and on the values like inclusion, diversity and belonging that make us all and our nation stronger.”
In the meantime, higher education advocacy groups are urging colleges and universities to stay calm and not overreact to the Dear Colleague letter.
On Tuesday the American Council on Education sent a letter to Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary of civil rights, requesting that he “rescind the DCL” and work with higher education institutions to ensure a clearer understanding of the letter before setting a new compliance deadline.
“Over the last two years, our colleges and universities have worked hard to assess and modify, as appropriate, policies and practices in light of the decision in the SFFA case and applicable civil rights laws,” ACE president Ted Mitchell wrote. “It is unreasonable for the department to require institutions to appropriately respond to this extremely broad reinterpretation of federal law in a mere two weeks and in the absence of necessary guidance.”