Tag: CUPAHR

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
How AI Is Transforming Your Work: Insights from CUPA-HR’s Spring Conference – CUPA-HR

by Julie Burrell | June 4, 2025

At the recent CUPA-HR Spring Conference in Seattle, artificial intelligence was a major topic of conversation, from session rooms to hallway discussions. AI has reshaped how many HR pros operate. It’s now being used as a daily tool, whether as a personal assistant for daily tasks or a strategic thought partner in decision-making.

Here’s how higher ed HR is using AI now.

Drafting communications and messaging. AI can help draft everything from emails to campus-wide communications. At her spring keynote, Jennifer Parker of the Colorado Community College System said she uses ChatGPT to rewrite her emails to be more formal in tone. She also recommends trying out AI to make internal communications more creative and tailored, like an inspiring message inviting specific groups of employees to review their benefits during open enrollment.

Making meetings more productive and presentations easier. AI is helping HR pros compile, organize and summarize their meeting notes. AI can also make checklists and to-do’s following meetings. Use AI to create slide decks and scripts for presentations.

If you’re looking to maximize your time, quickly make your longer meeting notes — like those from the recent CUPA-HR conference — into a conversational podcast using Google’s NotebookLM tool.

Helping you with internal talent development or coaching for individual career paths. AI can help you create a training or professional development program in record time, like Jennifer Parker did with her civility training program. It can also act as a career coach when used with the right prompts.

Assisting in talent acquisition. With AI, writing job descriptions has never been easier. For interviews, enter in a job description and ask AI to come up with applicable interview questions or ask for help in creating interview questions that are more neuroinclusive.

Injecting some creativity throughout the day. Members also shared imaginative uses of AI, like using Doodly to create animated whiteboards, asking ChatGPT to turn selfies into Lego minifigures, or using Canva’s AI features to make eye-catching designs.

Scaling Up

AI can do amazing things when used on a larger scale. HR pros are tackling more extensive projects with AI, often in collaboration with other departments.

Analyzing feedback and surveys. AI can process the results of open-ended survey questions and help identify themes to make surveys more effective than ever, with the partnership of survey experts and AI practitioners on campus.

See how Harvard University’s Center for Workplace Development used AI in combination with HRIS data to create a strategic needs assessment survey.

Brainstorming and researching for deeper insights. Proprietary software like Microsoft Copilot enables a deeper dive into existing institutional information and data. By uploading your institution’s mission and strategic priorities, you can accomplish any number of initiatives. Try creating recruitment materials, professional development programs, performance metrics and evaluations, or even a strategic priorities document specific to HR.

During their presentation, the talent management team at Grand Valley State University shared how they integrated AI into their process for creating core competencies. AI assisted them in brainstorming key competencies, cross-checking those competencies with their institutional values, and transforming them into action-oriented language.

Training Others on AI. Many HR leaders have been encouraging their employees to experiment with AI, including launching trainings or directing staff to existing trainings. For example, Microsoft offers general Copilot trainings and HR-specific trainings, all self-directed.

While AI adoption is picking up speed, there are certainly challenges in incorporating it into your workflow. Spring conference attendees mentioned concerns ranging from legal compliance to ensuring truth and authenticity in communication. But used with safeguards, AI has the potential to free up time and allow HR to do what it does best: the fundamentally human work of caring for the people on your campus.

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
DHS Terminates Harvard’s SEVP Certification, Blocking Foreign Student Enrollment – CUPA-HR

by CUPA-HR | May 22, 2025

On May 22, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it terminated Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification. According to DHS, this action bars Harvard from enrolling foreign students and requires foreign students currently enrolled at the institution to transfer to another U.S. institution or lose legal status.

In the announcement, DHS states that “Harvard’s leadership has created an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students, and otherwise obstruct its once-venerable learning environment.” DHS claims that many of the agitators are foreign students. The announcement also accuses Harvard’s leadership of facilitating and engaging in coordinated activity with the Chinese Communist Party.

On April 16, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem sent a letter to Harvard requesting the university to provide records on foreign students’ illegal activity or misconduct. The letter stated that Harvard could face immediate loss of SEVP certification if it did not comply. According to the DHS announcement on the SEVP termination, Harvard did not provide “the required information requested and ignored a follow up request from the Department’s Office of General Counsel.”

In DHS’s announcement regarding the termination of Harvard’s SEVP certification, Noem states that DHS’s decision to terminate Harvard’s SEVP certification is “holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on campus.” She further states that “it is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students” and to “let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.”

CUPA-HR will monitor for additional updates on this decision and other actions taken by DHS.

Share This Article:

Source link

May 22, 2025