Insights

The settlement approval hearing in In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.) is set for April 7, 2025. Commonly known as the “House Settlement,” the pending resolution between plaintiffs and the NCAA, if approved by Judge Claudia Wilken, could have far-reaching implications for higher education NCAA-member institutions and student-athletes.

On March 20, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities”.

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

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

As of July 1, Utah’s “Equal Opportunity Initiatives” law is in effect.  This law prohibits “discriminatory practices” at higher education institutions, public education systems, and government employers within Utah.  In response to the law, colleges and universities like the University of Utah, Southern Utah University, Utah State University, and Weber State University have reportedly already closed DEI offices and cultural centers.

In a recent development that underscores the ongoing debate over diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the United States, a group of 21 Republican State Attorneys General spearheaded by Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has challenged the American Bar Association's (ABA) Standard 206 on Diversity and Inclusion. In a letter sent to the ABA in early June, the Republican AG group argues that the ABA Standard and its proposed revisions are unlawful due to the Supreme Court's ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA).

In May, Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) announced legislation to encourage increased opportunities for artificial intelligence (“AI”) education at colleges, universities and K-12 institutions. In the public remarks introducing the bipartisan AI Education Act of 2024, Senator Cantwell noted, “This bill will open doors to AI for students at all levels, and upskill our workforce to drive American tech innovation, entrepreneurship and progress in solving the toughest global challenges.” Senator Moran summarized the need for the bill: “If we want to fully understand AI and remain globally competitive, we must invest in the future workforce today.”

The Fourth Circuit and an Arizona district court both have grappled with the issue of whether a school’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt-status is a form of “federal financial assistance” under various federal nondiscrimination provisions.  For a nonpublic school to be subject to statutes such as Title VI or Title XI, the school must be a recipient of federal financial assistance.

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

The NAIC has adopted a new Climate Risk Disclosure Survey (“CRDS”) as a means to modernize climate-related disclosure requirements and enhance transparency of how insurers manage their climate-related risks. The new NAIC survey is aligned with the international standard of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosure (TCFD).

On January 25th, 2022, California Assembly member, Marc Levine, introduced AB-1694, a bill that would require insurance companies to disclose details of all investments made in fossil fuel-related entities and all insurance provided for fossil fuel-related companies and projects. The bill directs the California Department of Insurance to publish these disclosures on its website and would authorize the Insurance Commissioner to take regulatory action to prohibit or restrict investments and insurance for fossil fuel-related companies and projects. The last aspect is the most controversial portion of the newly proposed California legislation.

On November 15, 2021, the New York Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) issued its final guidance for New York Domestic Insurers on Managing the financial risks associated with climate change. This DFS guidance describes climate change as “one of the most critical risk-management issues of our generation,” and sets forth DFS’s expectations for how insurers should incorporate climate risk into their overall risk management with respect to underwriting and investment portfolios. DFS is the first U.S. financial regulator to issue a holistic set of expectations regarding the management of climate-related financial risks.

In North Carolina, Governor Roy Cooper recently signed the “North Carolina Regulatory Sandbox Act of 2021” into law (the “Act”). The legislation creates a regulatory sandbox program for innovation in insurance and financial services, adopts a “taxonomy related to blockchain, smart contracts, and other emerging technologies,” and establishes the North Carolina Innovation Council.

On April 14, 2021, the State of Connecticut Insurance Department (CID) released a notice titled “The Usage of Big Data and Avoidance of Discriminatory Practices.” The CID addressed the notice to all of its licensed entities and persons.