Public Education & Services – Page 2

Federal Court Narrows but Does Not End Debate Over Transgender Athletes and Title IX in College Sports

Whether and how transgender women may participate in women’s collegiate sports remains one of the most closely watched issues in the country. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia’s September 2025 decision in Gaines v. National Collegiate Athletic Association—a case brought by former University of Kentucky swimmer Riley Gaines and other cisgender female college athletes—illustrates the unsettled legal terrain as state legislatures, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and federal courts address overlapping questions of eligibility and nondiscrimination.

Quick Hits

A federal court largely dismissed challenges to the NCAA’s former transgender-participation policies but allowed a narrow Title IX claim against the NCAA to proceed to targeted discovery focused on whether the NCAA is a federal funding recipient.
The court rejected constitutional claims against the NCAA, reaffirming that the NCAA is not a state actor, and found many claims against Georgia public institutions moot in light of Georgia’s new “Riley Gaines Act.”
The decision arrives as the Supreme Court of the United States prepares to hear cases addressing state laws governing participation by transgender girls and women in female sports, underscoring the unsettled national landscape.

Background
On September 25, 2025, U.S. District Judge Tiffany R. Johnson (N.D. Ga.) issued an order largely dismissing the lawsuit challenging the NCAA’s former transgender-participation policies, while permitting a limited aspect of the plaintiffs’ claim against the NCAA under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to proceed to targeted discovery. The ruling narrows the immediate dispute but positions the case for potentially consequential developments regarding the scope of Title IX and the NCAA’s obligations. The decision also arrives as the Supreme Court of the United States prepares to hear Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., which concern the legality of state laws restricting participation by transgender girls and women in female sports.
The District Court’s Decision
At the heart of the lawsuit is a challenge to NCAA policies that, until recently, allowed transgender women (athletes assigned male at birth) to compete in women’s sports and access female-designated facilities. The plaintiffs alleged these policies undermined the fairness, safety, and privacy of women’s athletics and violated Title IX and constitutional protections.
The court dismissed most claims against the State of Georgia’s public universities as moot in light of Georgia’s “Riley Gaines Act.” That statute now bars Georgia’s public universities from hosting or participating in competitions where “biologically male athletes” may compete against women or use women’s facilities, thereby supplying the relief sought—at least within Georgia.
Separately, the court rejected constitutional claims against the NCAA, reaffirming that the NCAA, as a private association, is not a state actor. As a result, the plaintiffs’ constitutional arguments (including privacy and equal protection claims) may not be used to directly challenge NCAA policies.
Title IX Recipient Theory
Although most of the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed, a potentially significant Title IX theory remains. The plaintiffs contend the NCAA is a “recipient” of federal financial assistance—specifically through a concussion-research partnership with the U.S. Department of Defense (now the “U.S. Department of War”)—and therefore directly subject to Title IX’s nondiscrimination requirements, including those that govern sex-based eligibility rules.
This theory is framed against the Supreme Court’s decision in National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459 (1999). In Smith, the Court held that the NCAA was not a Title IX recipient merely because it collected dues from member institutions that received federal funds. The Court’s ruling was narrow, however, and left open whether other forms of assistance—such as direct grants or formal partnerships—could trigger Title IX coverage.
Here, the court allowed limited discovery focused on whether NCAA research was directly or indirectly funded by the Department of Defense and whether the NCAA directly or indirectly plays a role in deciding how those funds are used. The court observed that, while it is unclear whether federal funds “ever rested in NCAA’s coffers,” the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged a funding relationship that, if proven, could bring the NCAA within Title IX’s ambit. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ allegations, if substantiated, would be sufficient to treat the NCAA as a Title IX recipient.
What’s Next
The court ordered a ninety‑day discovery period limited to the NCAA’s relationship with the Department of Defense and whether that relationship makes the NCAA a recipient of federal funds for Title IX purposes. After this focused discovery, the NCAA may move to dismiss if the record does not support Title IX coverage. A determination that the NCAA is a Title IX recipient would mark a notable departure from the posture in Smith and could expand Title IX’s reach to the NCAA itself, potentially shaping national standards for how federal funding triggers nondiscrimination obligations in college sports.
Statements From the Parties
The plaintiffs’ counsel characterized the ruling as a meaningful step toward establishing that the NCAA violated Title IX by allowing transgender women to compete in women’s sports. The NCAA, for its part, stated that it does not receive federal financial assistance that would subject it to Title IX and emphasized its ongoing promotion of women’s sports, investments in women’s championships, and commitment to fair competition. The NCAA also asserted that its transgender participation policy aligns with current federal guidance.
The Supreme Court’s Docket and the Broader Landscape
The Gaines decision unfolds alongside significant Supreme Court activity. In this term, the Court is expected to hear Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., each addressing state laws restricting participation in girls’ and women’s sports to athletes assigned female at birth. The Court is poised to consider, among other issues, the level of constitutional scrutiny applicable to such laws and the interplay with Title IX. These decisions could provide much‑needed clarity or sharpen the conflict among jurisdictions and governing bodies.
The Bottom Line
Gaines does not resolve the national debate over transgender athletes’ participation in women’s sports. It narrows the controversy for now and tees up a focused question that could be transformative: whether the NCAA is itself a recipient of federal financial assistance subject to Title IX. With a short discovery window on that issue and Supreme Court review of related state‑law challenges on the horizon, the legal landscape for college sports remains fluid. If the NCAA is found to be a Title IX recipient, its eligibility policies—including those concerning transgender athletes—would need to align with federal nondiscrimination requirements as interpreted by courts and federal agencies.

The Importance of Colleges and Universities Complying with Government Contracting and Grant Rules

Colleges and universities are increasingly engaged in complex relationships with the federal government — through contracts, cooperative agreements, and research grants that fund everything from infrastructure and cybersecurity to medical and defense-related innovations. With billions of dollars in federal funding flowing annually to higher education institutions, compliance with government contracting and grant requirements is not only a legal obligation, it’s a critical safeguard for institutional integrity, reputation, and continued eligibility for federal funding.
The Expanding Federal Footprint in Higher Education
Federal funding for research and development at colleges and universities has steadily increased over the past decade. Agencies such as the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Energy (DOE), National Science Foundation (NSF), and National Institutes of Health (NIH) rely on universities to carry out vital research. In many cases, the lines between “grant” and “contract” activity have blurred, with universities performing work that falls squarely under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) — which, incidentally, is currently undergoing a complete overhaul — or agency-specific supplements (e.g., DFARS, DEAR).
At the same time, universities are generally subject to the Uniform Guidance (2 C.F.R. Part 200), which imposes stringent cost, administrative, and audit requirements on certain federal awards. Noncompliance — whether intentional or inadvertent — can lead to costly enforcement actions, reputational harm, and, in severe cases, suspension or debarment from federal programs.
Why Compliance Matters

Enforcement Is Increasing – Federal agencies and inspectors general have stepped up oversight of higher education institutions’ compliance with procurement, cost accounting, and cybersecurity obligations. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has also applied the False Claims Act (FCA) aggressively in the university context, alleging that institutions submitted false certifications or mischarged costs to federal awards.
Cybersecurity and Data Protection – Many research universities handle controlled unclassified information (CUI) and are therefore subject to cybersecurity standards under DFARS 252.204-7012 and NIST SP 800-171. Failing to meet these requirements can trigger contractual noncompliance, FCA exposure, or loss of eligibility for defense-related research funding.
Cost and Accounting Rules – Under both the FAR and Uniform Guidance, universities must maintain adequate internal controls and accounting systems to ensure allowability, allocability, and reasonableness of costs. Improper cost transfers, inadequate documentation, or unapproved indirect cost rates can all lead to audit findings or financial penalties.
Human Subjects, Export Controls, and IP Compliance – Beyond fiscal rules, universities must comply with statutes governing human subjects research (Common Rule), export control laws (ITAR/EAR), and intellectual property rights under the Bayh–Dole Act. Each area carries unique compliance obligations and potential liability.

Practical Steps for Institutional Compliance

Establish a Centralized Compliance Framework – Develop a cross-functional compliance structure involving research administration, sponsored programs, procurement, legal counsel, and internal audit.
Implement Robust Policies and Training – Regular training for faculty and administrators on key federal requirements — particularly cost allowability, time and effort reporting, and data security — is essential.
Conduct Regular Internal Audits – Periodic self-assessments and mock audits can identify compliance gaps before federal auditors do.
Document, Document, Document – Federal compliance turns heavily on documentation. Institutions should maintain contemporaneous records of cost decisions, subrecipient monitoring, and contract performance.
Respond Promptly to Issues – If potential noncompliance arises, universities should consult with experienced legal counsel, promptly investigate, disclose as appropriate, and remediate to demonstrate good-faith compliance efforts.

The Bottom Line
Federal contracting and grant compliance is no longer an administrative formality for colleges and universities — it is a strategic imperative. The growing complexity of federal requirements, coupled with heightened enforcement, makes proactive compliance not just advisable, but essential. Universities and colleges that invest in strong compliance infrastructure, culture, and oversight position themselves to continue advancing their research missions while minimizing legal, reputational, and financial risk.
Listen to this post

Five Privacy Issues Higher Education Institutions Should Consider Monitoring

Takeaways

Higher education institutions have unique data privacy and cybersecurity challenges, including cross-border data transfer requirements.
Institutions are subject to increased regulatory oversight.
Assessing current data privacy and cybersecurity processes, data maintained, and data shared across the institution and with third parties can help ensure compliance with varying legal requirements.

School May Prohibit “Let’s Go Brandon” Sweatshirt, Sixth Circuit Holds

Let’s Go Brandon” was the message on the sweatshirts two siblings wore to middle school. Everyone knows what that phrase means – including their teachers, so the school required the boys to change clothes. That left their mother unhappy; she sued the school for silencing her kids.
This week, a divided Sixth Circuit panel sided with the school. Judge Nalbandian had the majority opinion, which Judge Moore joined, and Judge Bush dissented. This decision marks an important contribution to the student-speech cases, at a time when like cases continue to arise.
Beginning with Tinker—the famous case of students wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam War—the court explained that students’ at-school speech rights are not equal to their extracurricular rights. For example, under Fraser, public schools can punish vulgarity to advance their pedagogical missions in ways that police officers in public cannot. The court asked first whether “Let’s Go Brandon” qualifies as “vulgar” and, second, whether schools may silence vulgar political speech.
All agreed that students have no right to use or display the F-word at school, but “Let’s Go Brandon” is not itself vulgar. Rather, the phrase is a euphemism standing in for a foul word. The majority decided that “a school may regulate speech that conveys an obscene or vulgar message even when the words used are not themselves obscene or vulgar.” The message, not the words, inform the inquiry – plus a dose of judicial “deference” to school administrators’ judgment. The euphemism, then, was vulgar enough to restrict.
But was it too political to restrict? After all, political discourse is the Free Speech Clause’s core concern. No, the majority answered, because the “vulgarity trumps the political aspect of speech at school.” And with that, the court concluded the school reasonably exercised its power to “categorically prohibit” vulgar speech.
Judge Bush disagreed: “The liberty to criticize the president is not a freedom that stops at the schoolhouse door.” “Let’s Go Brandon,” Judge Bush reasoned, is non-vulgar, “purely political speech,” a “cheekily expressed criticism” of the then-sitting president. Judge Bush characteristically reasoned from history, highlighting vignettes from the past such as President John Adams’ mocking nickname, “His Rotundity.”
It followed that the Tinker standard should apply, not Fraser’s vulgarity exception to that standard. And Tinker requires the school to show disruption to limit speech, a condition absent from this case. The majority and dissent squabbled over a doctrinal point of real-world import. If Fraser’s vulgarity exception erases Tinker’s disruption requirement, then “who decides” what’s vulgar? To the majority, deference to administrators is in order, provided they act in good-faith (i.e., viewpoint neutral); but in Judge Bush’s dissenting view, discretion tempts censorship, so political speech traditions require “exceptions to Tinker [to] be construed narrowly and applied cautiously.”
Bright-line principles elide difficult First Amendment cases like this. And Judge Bush highlighted intra- and inter-circuit tension in the precedents. These points raise the specter of en banc or Supreme Court review. But for now, the panel-majority’s word is last: vulgarity turns on message, not the words that convey it, and school officials, not courts, decide what’s vulgar. At Tri County Middle School in Howard City, Michigan, the meme phrase “Let’s Go Brandon” crosses the line.

When Politics Sounds Like Profanity – Sixth Circuit Backs School Ban

Can a political slogan be too vulgar for school, even if it never actually uses a bad word? That was the question before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in B.A. v. Tri County Area Schools (Oct. 14, 2025), a case testing how far the First Amendment protects student political expression.
Two brothers filed suit in the federal court in Western Michigan after administrators in their public school told them to remove sweatshirts reading “Let’s Go Brandon,” a phrase widely understood as a euphemism for an expletive directed at former President Biden. The students argued it was protected political speech; the school said it was vulgar.
Writing for the majority, Judge John Nalbandian sided with the school, holding that educators may bar student speech reasonably understood as profane or vulgar, even when it carries a political message. The appeals court stressed that historically, teachers were given “great latitude in regulating vulgarity or profane speech, notwithstanding the shift from a system of voluntary private schools to one of compelled public schooling.” The decision gives wide deference to local administrators to decide what counts as inappropriate language, noting that “the First Amendment gives a student the right to wear Tinker’s armband, but not Cohen’s jacket,” meaning that schools should continue to tolerate non-disruptive political speech, yet may prohibit speech reasonably viewed as lewd, indecent, or vulgar, even when it carries a political message.
Key Takeaways

Vulgarity exception reaffirmed: The Sixth Circuit reaffirmed that schools may restrict speech reasonably viewed as vulgar, even if the words themselves are not explicit.
Political speech no shield: Political context does not override a school’s interest in civility; administrators may prohibit slogans with profane connotations.
Deference to local judgment: Courts will generally defer to educators’ good-faith determinations of what is inappropriate in a K–12 environment.
Split with other circuits: The dissent pointed out that other federal appeals courts have protected comparable student expressions with political overtones, even when the language was arguably offensive. This growing divide among the circuits increases the likelihood of future Supreme Court review to cla

Massachusetts Issues Guidance to Educational Institutions on Title VI and Massachusetts Law

Massachusetts institutions of higher education (“IHEs”) should note that on September 23, 2025, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office and the Executive Office of Education released joint guidance clarifying legal protections for students and staff in educational settings (the “Massachusetts guidance”). Issued in response to evolving court precedent and federal guidance around diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, the Massachusetts guidance aims to clarify the current state of the law. Notably, the guidance differs from recent Title VI guidance from the federal government, stating that those communications “misconstrue case law, misinterpret federal statutes and Supreme Court precedent, and wrongly imply that it might be unlawful for schools to consider the impact of policies, practices, and programming on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.”
IHEs should remember that both federal and Massachusetts guidance are advisory—they provide recommendations, not binding rules. Public and private IHE’s in Massachusetts should review the Massachusetts guidance in comparison with Title VI guidance from the federal government, including the July 30, 2025 memo from the Department of Justice (the “DOJ memo”), which is the subject of this prior client alert. Working with legal counsel, institutions should assess risks, including potential compliance actions such as funding freezes or grant terminations, that may arise from various policies and practices.
This alert summarizes the Massachusetts guidance as it applies to IHE policies and practices, flags key areas of disagreement with the DOJ memo, and serves as a practical resource as institutions navigate changes in federal and state oversight.
1. Nondiscrimination laws and DEI
The Massachusetts guidance reaffirms that IHEs must comply with federal non-discrimination laws such as Title VI (race, color, national origin) and Title IX (sex), as well as state laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, sex, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, and national origin. The Massachusetts guidance states inclusive practices and programming “confer important educational and social benefits for all students” and are “essential to promoting fair treatment and eliminating stigmatization.”
Citing “[l]ongstanding legal precedent” the Massachusetts guidance indicates that IHE’s may “foster diversity across numerous dimensions, including geography, socioeconomic status, race, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity, among others” and provides “legally complaint ways that educational institutions can continue to meaningfully and successfully achieve the worthy goal of diverse and equitable student bodies[.]” Note that this view of diversity differs from with the DOJ memo, which identifies “demographic-driven criteria,” including those targeting based on geographic area as potentially illegal “proxies” for racial discrimination.
2. Impact of SFFA
Both the Massachusetts guidance and the DOJ memo specifically address the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admission, Inc. vs. Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA),[1] prohibiting the consideration of an applicant’s race as a factor in collegiate admissions. The Massachusetts guidance states that SFFA “has no direct application to programs outside of higher education admissions,” but “may extend to a school’s provision of a concrete benefit or opportunity to a particular individual based on that individual’s race.” The Massachusetts guidance indicates that under SFFA, IHEs may still include diversity as part of their missions, and may use factors other than race, such as “cultural competencies, income level, first generation to attend college, neighborhood or community circumstances, disadvantages overcome, and the impact of an applicant’s particular experiences on their academic achievement and on the perspectives they would bring to the school environment.” As the Massachusetts guidance noted, this view has been upheld in a recent First Circuit decision as it applied to public secondary schools,[2] and is consistent with the text of SFFA which indicates that universities may consider characteristics other than race, including “an applicant’s discussion of how race has affected his or her life[.]” The Massachusetts guidance also indicates that institutions may recruit or target outreach in a way that aligns with their diversity goals, and may collect and evaluate data on race and ethnicity for purposes other than providing an advantage to an individual applicant based on race.
In contrast, the DOJ memo identifies “‘cultural competence requirements,’” and “‘overcoming obstacles’ narratives,” as well as geographic preferences as “potentially unlawful proxies” for race-based discrimination. The DOJ memo also indicates that any “intent to influence demographic representation risks violating federal law” and that institutions should focus “solely on nondiscrimination performance metrics” when evaluating applicants.

3. Identity-based programming
The Massachusetts guidance states that IHEs can include course offerings addressing race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, religion, or related topics, and can sponsor student affinity groups that are “open to all students while also allowing students of particular backgrounds or common experiences to feel valued and heard.” The Massachusetts guidance indicates that “groups and spaces that focus on common experiences of particular groups do not inherently create a hostile environment” but that such groups or spaces “should be open and welcoming of students from any background.”
The Massachusetts guidance does not indicate that exclusive programs or spaces would be permissible – rather, it states that programming or facilities must be open to all, even if they are focused on particular groups. The DOJ memo, however, states that giving any facilities or programs that are “technically open to all” an “identity-based focus creates a perception of segregation and may foster a hostile environment.” The only exceptions in the DOJ memo for division based on identity are single-sex facilities designed to “protect privacy or safety.” including “restrooms, showers, locker rooms, or lodging.”
Next Steps for Institutions of Higher Education
Massachusetts IHEs should closely review their state’s guidance alongside federal guidance and requirements and consult with legal counsel to ensure compliance and manage risk. Institutions should also update policies, train staff on nondiscrimination obligations, and develop clear protocols for investigating and addressing complaints.
Footnotes
[1] 600 U.S. 181 (2023)
[2] Bos. Parent Coal. For Acad. Excellence Corp. v. Sch. Comm. For Bity of Bos., 89 F.4th 46 (1st Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 15 (2024)

Student Loans and Educational Benefits: Here to Stay

Educational benefits are a cost-effective and tax-friendly way to attract, retain, and motivate employees. Recent legal changes have expanded employer-provided, tax-advantaged educational benefits to cover student loan repayment. These tax benefits are now permanent, increasing interest in the programs.
Tax-Favored Student Loan Repayments
Employers can provide up to $5,250 per employee, tax-free, for repayment of eligible student loans. This amount will increase over time with annual cost-of-living adjustments. The benefit can be limited to employees who are actively making loan payments (effectively a “match”) and can be made subject to repayment if an employee leaves within a set period.
As a tax-advantaged benefit, student loan repayment assistance must be properly documented in a written plan and must be offered to a nondiscriminatory class of employees. Any amount over $5,250 will be subject to ordinary income taxes.
Other Student Loan Repayment Benefits
Employers may also provide taxable student loan repayment benefits, generally to a select group of employees as an executive benefit. Although less tax-efficient, this type of benefit can help attract and retain talent in high-demand positions and can be subject to repayment if the employee leaves.
These benefits are not tax-advantaged and are not subject to the legal restrictions that apply to tax-favored student loan repayments. While a written plan is not required, careful documentation can protect the company from claims and clarify expectations. Unlike the tax-favored benefits, this option can be extended to more senior employees who may have children with student loans.
Educational Assistance Benefits
Employers may pay up to $5,250 per year, tax-free, for employees’ tuition, fees, school supplies, and similar payments. This is not a new benefit, but the rise of tax-favored student loan repayment has renewed interest.
These benefits must be offered on a nondiscriminatory basis to similarly situated employees, although employers can set reasonable educational standards, for example, accredited programs related to the employee’s job, and can require repayment if certain conditions are not met, such as leaving employment within a set period or not completing the course. These restrictions must be described in a written plan.
The $5,250 limit often means that the restrictions are not problematic in practice. Educational benefits can help retain highly motivated employees and those with leadership potential from leaving, support leadership development, and promote a positive workplace culture.
Retirement Plans
If your 401(k) plan provides matching contributions, you can allow certain student loan repayments to count as contributions for matching purposes. Once the plan is amended, employees can receive 401(k) matching contributions based on eligible student loan repayments, as if they had contributed those amounts to the plan as an elective deferral.
Employers who want to provide this option should work with legal counsel, their recordkeeper, and their payroll provider to ensure the benefit is properly implemented, communicated, and administered.

Governor Newsom Signs California Bill Defining Ultraprocessed Food

On October 8, 2025, Governor Newsom signed the “Real Food, Healthy Kids Act,” making California the first state to define ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) and prohibit them in schools.
California’s AB 1264 prohibits schools from offering meals that include “ultraprocessed foods of concern,” and from “selling food or beverages . . . containing those restricted school foods or ultraprocessed foods of concern,” except for food items sold as part of a school fundraising event, starting July 1, 2035. “Ultraprocessed food” is clearly defined for the first time under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 104661, defining a UPF as one that may contain such ingredients as nonnutritive sweeteners; high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, and added sugar; additives such as emulsifiers, stabilizers and thickeners, flavor enhancers, food dyes; and more. Additionally, the bill directs the California Department of Public Health to define “ultraprocessed foods of concern” and “restricted school foods” by June 1, 2028, and to phase out these foods from school meals beginning July 1, 2029. Please note that these dates and terms have been revised since we last reported on this bill.
The bill received broad bipartisan support, receiving 119 positive votes from both Republican and Democratic California assemblymembers and senators, and only one vote not to pass.
The enactment of AB 1264 is a significant decisive action as both federal and state lawmakers have struggled to define UPFs. According to Governor Newsom, “California has never waited for Washington or anyone else to lead on kids’ health – we’ve been out front for years, removing harmful additives and improving school nutrition.”
The bill is among many other state efforts to limit processed foods. As we have previously blogged, there have been a host of newly proposed bills targeting synthetic dyes and various other food additives, which, if adopted, will create a divided and complicated regulatory scheme across the country. Additionally, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently requested information to formally define UPFs – setting an original deadline for public comment for September 23, 2025, then later extending it to October 23, 2025.

Navigating Disability Accommodations in Higher Education: Processes, Distinctions, and Best Practices

Universities serve as both learning environments and workplaces, placing them at the intersection of student rights and employee protections. This dual role brings unique obligations when it comes to providing disability accommodations. While both students and faculty are entitled to reasonable accommodations under the law, the processes, points of contact, and implementation differ significantly. Understanding these distinctions is essential for compliance, equity, and building a truly inclusive campus culture.
The Legal Foundation
The primary laws guiding disability accommodations in higher education are the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Students are covered under ADA Titles II and II, and Section 504, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in programs, services, and activities—including admissions, academic courses, on campus housing, and campus life—unless doing so is a fundamental alteration or undue hardship.
Faculty and staff are covered under ADA Title I, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees unless doing so creates undue hardship.

These legal distinctions shape how universities structure their disability accommodation processes.
Understanding the Disability Accommodation Process for Students
For students, the disability accommodation process is designed to ensure equity in students’ access to academic and campus life. The steps typically include:

Disclosure and Documentation: Students disclose their disability to the university and provide documentation outlining functional limitations. Ideally, the university processes these disclosures through a central disability services office with trained personnel, which is subject to oversight from the university’s ADA Coordinator.
Interactive Process: The university engages with the student to assess how the disability affects their access to academic and campus life. The university and the student engage in conversations to discuss appropriate accommodations based on the student’s needs.
Implementation: University-approved accommodations – such as extended exam time, note-taking assistance, adaptive technology, or accessible housing – are formally communicated by the student to their faculty or other staff. Professors must implement these measures while maintaining fundamental course standards and staff in the disability services office can help coordinate with faculty and staff.
Ongoing Support: Accommodations may be revisited throughout a student’s academic career to address evolving needs.

Understanding the Disability Accommodation Process for Faculty and Staff Employees
For faculty and staff, accommodations are designed to ensure equal employment opportunity. The process typically involves:

Request for Accommodation: Employees submit accommodation requests to a designated office. At some institutions, these requests may go through the central disabilities services office, but more commonly the process for employees is handled by HR. In either situation, the process is overseen by the ADA Coordinator.
Medical Documentation: The university may request documentation verifying the disability and the need for accommodations. This information is kept confidential and separate from personnel files.
Interactive Process: The university works with the employee to assess the impact of the disability on job performance and identify potential accommodations.
Implementation and Monitoring: Accommodations might include flexible schedules, teaching support, modified job duties, or assistive technology. Supervisors and HR or the centralized disabilities services office coordinate implementation, ensuring that essential job functions and performance standards are maintained.

Key Differences Between Student and Employee Disability Accommodation Processes

Aspect
Students
Faculty/Staff

Governing Law

ADA Titles II and III, Section 504

ADA Title I

Initial Contact
Disability Services Office
Human Resources

Documentation Focus

Impact on learning and access

Impact on job performance

Implementation

Faculty implement accommodations in courses; Staff may implement in other situations (like housing)

Supervisors and HR implement accommodations in the workplace

Standards

Academic integrity and fundamental course standards must be preserved

Essential job functions and performance standards must be preserved

Practical Steps for Universities
To balance legal obligations and create a culture of inclusion, universities should adopt several best practices:

Centralize and Communicate Policies: Publish clear, accessible policies and procedures for students and employees, with step-by-step instructions on how to request disability accommodations. Consider centralizing disability services offices so that the same personnel are engaging with students across educational programs.
Train Faculty and Supervisors: Provide regular training on implementing disability accommodations appropriately—faculty for student requests, supervisors for employee requests, residence life for student housing requests. Faculty in particular must be aware of the importance of implementing accommodations for students, particularly those with unseen disabilities.
Maintain Confidentiality and Respect: Protect all medical documentation and approach the process with sensitivity to avoid stigma.
Engage in the Interactive Process: Work collaboratively with students and employees to tailor accommodations to individual needs rather than applying rigid rules.
Review and Adjust Accommodations: Establish systems to reassess accommodations as circumstances evolve.
Integrate into the educational environment: Position accessibility and accommodation as integral to the broader educational experience.

Recent Legal Precedents: What Universities Should Know
Several recent court decisions reinforce and refine the legal landscape of disability accommodations in academic settings:

In Tharpe v. Osseo Area Schools (2025), the Supreme Court held that educational institutions cannot require students to meet a more stringent standard for proving disability discrimination just because the student is in a school setting. This decision ensures that students have the same legal protections as adults in other ADA contexts.
In Schoper v. Western Illinois University (7th Cir., 2024), the court clarified that a ‘do-over’ for past performance is generally not a required accommodation under ADA — reasonable disability accommodations are forward-looking in most cases.
Cases such as White v. Rutgers University (2024) exemplify the risk of lawsuit that occurs when faculty members ignore approved accommodations or fail to engage in the interactive process.
In the recently filed case of Bertelloti v. Regents of the University of California, students at UCLA allege widespread accessibility barriers, underscoring that disability accommodations obligations extend beyond academics into the physical campus environment and services such as housing, signage, evacuation plans, and transportation.

Unpacking the “House” Settlement’s Impact on Collegiate Athletics [Video]

The recently decided landmark class action antitrust lawsuit, House v. NCAA, is expected to restructure the landscape of collegiate athletics.
On this episode of We get work®, we explore the case, the settlement and the potential long-term impact on collegiate athletic departments.

Transcript
INTRO
The recently decided landmark class action antitrust lawsuit, House v. NCAA, is expected to restructure the landscape of collegiate athletics.
On this episode of We get work®, we explore the case, the settlement and the potential long-term impact on collegiate athletic departments.
Today’s hosts are Bernie Dennis, principal in the Washington D.C. region office of Jackson Lewis, Dani Bland and Jason Kaner, associates, respectively, in the firm’s Raleigh and Philadelphia offices.
Bernie, Dani and Jason, the question on everyone’s mind today is: What changes will collegiate athletics departments be required to make pursuant to the House settlement, and how will that impact my business?
CONTENT
Bernie DennisPrincipal, Washington D.C., Region
Welcome everybody to this episode of We get work. We are in September, students are back on campus, and college sports have started. What better time to recap what happened this summer in collegiate athletics with members of our Education and Collegiate Athletics Group? I’m Bernie Dennis, a principal here in the Washington, D.C., region office of Jackson Lewis. I’m joined here by two of our great associates in the Education and Collegiate Athletics Group, Dani and Jason. I want you guys to go ahead and introduce yourself really quickly.
Dani BlandAssociate, Raleigh
I’m Dani, and I’m an associate in the Raleigh, North Carolina, office.
Jason KanerAssociate, Philadelphia
Hey everyone, Jason Kaner here. I’m an associate in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania office.
Dennis
All right, great, everybody. There was a lot of action this summer on the collegiate athletics front, with what is commonly called the House Settlement. The House v. NCAA settlement was accepted by the Courts in early June and led to a lot of action over the summer with institutions. Why don’t we just level set for everybody that’s listening in?
Dani, can you tell us what the settlement was about? Who’s involved with the settlement?
Bland
The House Settlement, as it’s called, consolidates three antitrust cases that were brought against the NCAA. It involves currently about 75 institutions that are members of the ACC, the Big 10, the Big 12, the SEC, and formerly the PAC 12, as well as the University of Notre Dame. The Power conferences and then the University of Notre Dame, which is not tied to a conference. Institutions that will join one of these conferences during the term of the settlement agreement will be added to that agreement’s terms as well during the term of the agreement.
Dennis
It’s not just the power conferences, right? Other Division One institutions had an option to opt in and have an option to opt in annually as well. The initial deadline is July 1st, and then March 1st every year. Schools that want to make a move or participate in the financial portions of this settlement have an annual option to do so.
Jason, why don’t you tell us a little bit about what the settlement entailed? What are the details that listeners want to know?
Kaner
The big number here is $2.78 billion, and that’s the back pay damages which are going to be paid out over 10 years. The NCAA is committing this money to current and former D1 athletes. It comes out to approximately $280 million per year, and the award of these damages covers the period from June 15th, 2016, through September 15th of last year. The claims window for current and former athletes to file a claim is now October 1st, so the beginning of next month.
The funding for this massive settlement is the NCAA reserve pools of money, as well as some insurance compensation. Approximately $1.1 billion is going to come from those two sources. Then, the remaining $1.6 billion is going to be derived from future reductions in these annual distributions that are made to the NCAA member schools.
Dennis
So, you’ve got the NCAA and schools pitching in on this settlement. Who is receiving the benefit of these? Is the settlement equally divided amongst athletes, or will there be some apportionment of the settlement?
Kaner
That’s a great question. Obviously, in NCAA sports, you think about football and basketball, men’s and women’s, as the primary earning activities. Within the fund, the payouts are allocated based on the categories of athlete experience and what’s categorized as missed NIL opportunities. Some of the funds are designated explicitly for football and men’s basketball, women’s basketball, and then other pools for other sports.
The detailed breakdowns under the plan are in flux, but it looks like it’s going to be $71.5 million earmarked specifically for video game NIL compensation for football and men’s basketball. I know a lot of people love the college football video game. It came back for the first time last year. This is now the second year they’ve released it. A men’s basketball game is also apparently in the works. An additional $1.8 billion is allocated for broadcast NIL compensation. Again, that is directed towards football and men’s basketball. $89.5 million is set aside to cover lost NIL opportunities- that’s cumulatively. Then, there’s a $600 million pool, which is going to be available for additional compensation claims.
The distribution framework of all this, I know we just threw a lot of numbers at you, is 95% of the funds are going to be dedicated to Power Five Sports, and it’s going to be divided among football, men’s basketball, women’s basketball, and the other sports. Three-quarters of it is going to go to football. Men’s basketball will get about 15%. Women’s basketball, 5%. Then, the remaining 5% to the other sports.
Dennis
A lot of this settlement is lumped in with what they commonly refer to as those revenue-generating sports, football and basketball. I’m sure there are people who are not happy about that- some of those other athletes in other sports.
Dani, have there been any challenges to this appeal over the summer?
Bland
Yes, there are several different avenues that people are going to take to challenge and have been taking to challenge this settlement. First, we saw in an executive order from the Trump administration, “Save College Sports,” that aims to preserve what is commonly referred to as Olympic sports and non-revenue-generating sports, but the Executive Order doesn’t define what revenue-generating sports are. It’s a little unclear, but we should be getting some guidance later in September from the Department of Education on how they want some of those things to be implemented.
We’ll also see some Title IX challenges to this settlement. The important thing to note regarding Title IX is that the case this agreement settles, those three cases, have no Title IX claims underlying them. However, anyone out there who thinks Title IX isn’t going to come up is wrong. Under the settlement of antitrust claims, male student athletes who are anticipated to receive a good majority of the damages, probably over 90%. Female student athletes are anticipated to receive about 5% of the damages to resolve the antitrust claims. The important thing to note, though, for the schools is that again, these are settlements of antitrust claims and not Title IX claims. These past damage calculations shouldn’t be used as a tool to calculate future payments. It’s not listed as a Title IX-compliant model because it has nothing to do with Title IX. These are just back damages for antitrust issues. That is something that schools will need to keep in mind as they figure out how they’re going to make these revenue-sharing payments going forward.
Then, you also have your antitrust challenges. Some people argue that the settlement itself, with the cap of $20.5 million for this upcoming academic year for the revenue sharing, could be an unfair restriction on trade. Also, you have the common class issues that you see in class actions, which are whether the class is adequately represented and whether they’ll receive adequate notice.
Those are some of the issues and challenges that you may see in appeals to the settlement.
Dennis
Great, thanks, Dani. As Jason mentioned up front, this settlement really only covers 10 years. A permanent solution is not yet in place. Each Congressional session, there continues to be legislation put forward, and this session is no different. It remains to be seen if anything will ultimately be passed to provide some surety. I know the NCAA is still pushing for nationwide guidance on what those structures are going to be.
That covers a lot of the back pay in how former athletes were harmed, but this settlement also covers some forward-looking relief to student athletes in the form of injunctive relief. Jason, why don’t you tell us something about this injunctive component of the settlement?
Kaner
Looking forward now for the next 10 years, at least, we have schools paying direct compensation to student athletes via this revenue sharing. Starting July 1st, 2025, schools may share up to 22% of their average Power Five revenues with student athletes. The first year, this payout begins at approximately $20.5 million per school. That’s the cap in essence. That’ll increase annually through the next decade, projected at around 4% annually each for the next couple of years. It could potentially reach up to $33 million by 2035.
We talked earlier, Dani referenced opting in and opting out. A great analogy I’ve heard is this is like putting an ante in at the poker table. You don’t know what’s ahead, but you need to do it so you can see what’s coming over the next decade.
Dennis
Right, opting in will allow each institution to pay student athletes directly up to $20.5 million. We’ll see how many schools fully fund their programs to that maximum. Part of the settlement is also going to restructure how institutions staff and have athletes in their programs. Right, Dani, what’s some of the settlement going to address with that?
Bland
First, as of now, we have 319 schools, so 82% of all D1 institutions have opted in. This is something we’re going to see across the board in all of Division 1. There was some question at the beginning about how many schools outside of these power conferences would opt in, but it seems like everyone wants to be able to stay competitive.
There is this elimination of scholarship limits, so the previous headcount cap is lifted, and institutions may now offer more flexible scholarship models. However, the caveat to that is that there will be some sports-specific roster limits. For example, a lot of times the roster may cut down below what we’ve seen the average rosters be in the past, but you can fund all of those players with full scholarships if you so choose. For example, football’s roster cap is now 105 athletes, but there are teams in Division I who carry as many as 180 student-athletes on their roster. Now, they’re not subject to those prior scholarship limits that were far below the 180 number. They can now roster only 105 athletes, but if they wanted to, they could fully scholarship all 105 of them. It is a huge game-changer, especially with those top athletes.
Dennis
Dani, you mentioned that there are going to be roster limits that are going to leave out 75 to 80 football players, and other athletes in other sports are going to have their roster spots cut by these roster limits. That held up some of the acceptance and led to the court’s reluctance to accept this settlement. The settlement ultimately addressed that. What does the settlement do for those athletes?
Bland
Right. The settlement kept in mind the fact that there would be this shift in rosters. Rosters are having to shrink, which would obviously impact student-athletes who are currently playing their sport and potentially losing their spot. The deadline was back in July to designate a student athlete. The idea was that you would essentially mark the athletes who are going to be cut if you were limited to the roster cap that is now in place. But that athlete is allowed to participate for the rest of their eligibility and doesn’t count against your cap. Then, moving forward, it gives some leeway for a few years for this settlement and new roster sizes to go into effect so that you’re not really upending these student athletes’ academic and athletic careers by suddenly just dropping the settlement on them. It gives a nice transition period.
These athletes who were rostered or recruited by April 7th, 2025, and were designated as of the deadline are exempt from counting against the new roster limits for the rest of their eligibility. Whether they have four years remaining of eligibility or one year remaining, the timeline follows the athlete as opposed to the school.
Dennis
That designation will follow the athlete, not just in their careers at their current institutions, but should they transfer, they wouldn’t count against their new institution’s roster limits, too. That designation was important for schools to get in by the deadline over the summer.
With these changes, roster limits, and direct payments to student athletes, there have still been grumblings about concerns about competition and pay for play. How is this settlement going to be enforced, Jason?
Kaner
The shiny new oversight committee that’s being rolled out is the College Sports Commission, the CSC. It’s brand new. It’s an independent enforcement body for all these settlement-related terms. The CSC was created and reports to the Power Five commissioners, rather than the NCAA itself, in Indianapolis. The NCAA will still handle enforcement for rules outside the settlement scope. Bryan Seeley, who’s a former Department of Justice attorney and MLB compliance chief, is now the CEO of this new commission. He’s being tasked with oversight and making sure that oversight is meaningful. The CSC is going to provide compliance guidance, NIL deals, and reporting requirements via NIL Go. They’re going to administer the revenue sharing under this CAPS, College Athlete Payment System model, manage roster assignments, and enforce the arbitration protocols that are going to be in place. Overall, it’s a comprehensive enforcement body that’s going to hopefully bring some clarity to this system.
Now, I mentioned NIL Go. That’s a big piece of this. NIL payments for deals that are going to be over $600 need to be reported now via this NIL Go portal. It’s going to be operated by the CSC and Deloitte, a Big Four accounting firm. It’s to confirm the market value of these deals and make sure that there’s some transparency. There are major enforcement questions here, so we’ll see. This is the first year it’s going to be rolled out.
There are also some questions about how arbitration is going to look under the CSC model. The arbitration they’re trying to roll out is mandatory expedited arbitration in a very short timeline. We’re all litigators here, so we know that’s not always easy. We’ll see how that goes, but there’s a valiant effort via the CSC to oversee this whole process.
Dennis
With the CSC reporting to the conferences, they’re trying to build in a little bit of flexibility and ability to respond swiftly to institutions’ and Power Conference concerns. We did see a little bit of that already over the summer. At the beginning of July, the CSC has been rolling out guidance about how it’s going to evaluate these deals. It seemed to indicate that they weren’t going to look too favorably upon the use of collectives by institutions. Those Power Conferences said, hold up, we’ve got this system in place. Within a couple of weeks, the CSC guidance changed. We’ll see if that’s an initial function of this new governing body that is so flexible, as its guidance is new, or if that’s going to continue to be something where they’re going to be at the whim of what the Power Conferences want to do in how they adjust and go through things. Certainly, as any challenges to deals, rosters, or anything like that come up, and we have these arbitration hearings in place, how quickly they can resolve that to everybody’s satisfaction is certainly going to be an ongoing issue.
Then, like you said, Jason, the NCAA is still going to cover things outside of this settlement. Anything about eligibility issues and things like that. We’ve continued to see over this summer, just putting a bow on everything, that there continue to be those challenges. Does junior college eligibility count against your time to compete under NCAA rules? Circuits seem to start splitting on that issue. Just recently, actually just last night, I believe there was a challenge to the “four-and-five rule,” and whether that’s an antitrust violation. As busy a summer as it was, it’s going to continue to be interesting to follow sports this fall as our competition ramps up. We’ve got one weekend of college football in the books with some exciting games and some exciting new athletes.
Thanks for joining us. Feel free to reach out to us or a member of the Jackson Lewis Education and Collegiate Athletics Group with any questions you may have. We look forward to assisting any institution with questions they might have as these things progress, and we keep an eye on everything.
OUTRO
Thank you for joining us on We get work®. Please tune into our next program where we will continue to tell you not only what’s legal, but what is effective. We get work® is available to stream and subscribe to on Apple Podcasts and YouTube. For more information on today’s topic, our presenters and other Jackson Lewis resources, visit jacksonlewis.com.

Twitter Tirade Turns into Trouble – Online Conduct Can Be Legitimate Reason for Employer Action

Employee activity on social media is a hot topic. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed a case in which a university employee was denied opportunities following a Twitter tirade. The court affirmed that the university did not discriminate against the employee, did not violate the First Amendment, and upheld the university’s actions. This case serves as a reminder that employers can consider employees’ social media activity in making personnel decisions (but should do so carefully – as we blogged about here).
The Facts
In Patterson v. Kent State University, the employee, a transgender professor at Kent State, was denied certain opportunities after multiple tweets in which he insulted and directed profanity at colleagues and the university. GPat Patterson had requested to become the new director of the Center for the Study of Gender and Sexuality after the then-director stepped down. Administration informed him that the position was not yet open but proposed reducing his teaching load so that he could develop a new gender-studies major. He later inquired again about the director position, and administration reiterated that they were not sure what the position vacancy and filling would look like.
After this, Patterson took to Twitter. His tweets took place over a period of roughly three weeks. Some of these tweets included:

Patterson criticized the “white ladies in charge, with [no] content expertise in this area” and called one a “usurper.”
In response to the idea that insulting colleagues on social media was unprofessional, Patterson said “No the f*ck it isn’t.”
“Academia is fundamentally racist, heterosexist, cissexist, ableist, classist & sexist.”
Patterson referred to colleagues as “kind of translash” and stated “the minute I raise an equity issue, I’m suddenly read as a problem to be neutralized.”
Patterson stated Kent State had “institutional transphobia” and “overt trans antagonism.”
“I wish there’d have been a grad practicum called Oh, The Places They’ll Go: How to Navigate F*ckery as a Multimarg Faculty Member.”
“Thanks for coming to my TED talk on how u can claim to be a trans ally all you want, but if you pull sh*t to bar trans ppl’s access to life chances, ur still a transphobe. Also, if ur a bystander who watches someone do this mess & don’t intervene? Also a transphobe.”
Patterson stated “individual back-stabbery” was occurring, colleagues “see you as competition & want you to fail,” and “the whole damn system is killing you a bit more each day.”
“I need you to understand the death-dealing & soul-murdering consequences that result from profoundly privileged administrators not grasping the insidiousness with which inequity & violence show up in multimarg faculty & staff workplaces. Y’all are quite literally killing us.”
“Absolutely zero surprise it’s a poli sci prof. Forgive the generalization but that discipline is a sentient trash heap.”
“I’d like to talk about the epistemic violence of a university attempting to create a [gender-studies] major, but blocking scholars, with whole PhDs in the discipline, from leading the effort. Please. Tell me another discipline where admins try to pull this sh*t. I’ll wait.”

The university later revoked its offer to lighten Patterson’s teaching load, did not ultimately elevate Patterson into the director position, and denied Patterson’s request to transfer from one campus to another. Patterson later filed suit, challenging these three actions. He brought claims of transgender identity discrimination, disability discrimination, retaliation, and violation of the First Amendment.
The Sixth Circuit’s Holding
The district court granted summary judgment to the university on all claims, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Key to the Sixth Circuit’s holding was that the university had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decisions. The court emphasized that the record clearly showed Patterson’s tweets were disparaging, contained profanity, and attacked colleagues, which not only created a toxic work environment but also violated the university’s policies. The court held that these tweets “easily provided reasonable grounds—having nothing do to with sex or gender—for disciplining or reprimanding an employee.”
As for his First Amendment claim, the court affirmed that his speech was not protected under the law because (1) the speech did not touch on a matter of “public concern” and instead involved personal attacks on colleagues, and (2) the university’s interest in education and effective public service outweighed Patterson’s interest in, as the court called it, “trash talk.”
The Takeaways
If an employee’s speech is creating a problem for your work environment, you may be able to do something about it. We blogged here about tips for navigating the tricky situations when you learn of an employee’s potentially problematic speech. Gather the facts, review your policies, talk to the employee, and, as always, consult with you labor and employment counsel.
Listen to this article

Mississippi College School of Law Becomes First in Southeast to Require AI Training for All Students

Last week, Mississippi College School of Law (MC Law) announced that it would become the first law school in Mississippi, and the first in the Southeast, to require all students to complete an AI certification course prior to graduation. As AI is increasingly integrated into the legal profession, MC Law joins Case Western Reserve University School of Law as the second law school nationwide to establish a mandatory AI certification program.
“Whether our students plan to be litigators or transactional attorneys, their future employers will expect familiarity with these AI tools. We want the firms hiring our students to be confident that every MC Law grad is competent in AI technologies,” MC Law Dean John Anderson told The National Law Review (NLR).
The program is being designed and taught by Oliver Roberts, an adjunct professor at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, Co-Director of the WashU Law AI Collaborative, and Founder and CEO of Wickard.ai.1
“Mississippi is uniquely positioned to lead in the AI revolution, and we’re proud to make that a reality through this historic and innovative partnership with MC Law,” said Roberts, who also taught the nation’s first required AI course at Case Western earlier this year.
Reflecting Mississippi’s growing AI leadership, Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves recently awarded MC Law a $723,000 grant to establish the Center for AI Policy and Technology Leadership (CAPTL), a joint initiative between the law school and the MC School of Business. CAPTL leverages MC Law’s faculty AI expertise to inform lawmakers, legislative staff, and their outside advisors considering AI-related legislative initiatives, and helps track cutting-edge AI policy developments around the U.S.
MC Law’s inaugural Introduction to AI and the Law program reflects the law school’s latest efforts in AI leadership. Launching this spring, the program combines classroom AI instruction with practical AI tool training. According to Anderson, this groundbreaking program will span roughly 12–14 hours across four sessions, covering core AI concepts, prompting techniques, ethical considerations, and the evolving regulatory landscape. It will culminate in a certification assessment.
Anderson sees the program as part of a larger Mississippi AI ecosystem with MC Law “perfectly situated” by “the state capitol, the supreme court, the governor’s mansion, and our state’s largest law firms.” MC Law plans to expand CAPTL’s programming to educate and provide AI resources to state and regional leaders.
MC Law’s decision to expand its AI programming comes amid a growing trend among law schools adding AI education to their curricula. This new initiative suggests these mandates may soon become standard practice in legal education.
“Prospective law students want to know they will be prepared for the practice of law in the digital age, and employers will demand it. When other law schools see what we are doing, I expect they will follow suit,” Anderson added.
AI is quickly being integrated into the legal professions, just like it is in other businesses. For law firms, AI tools are simplifying administrative tasks, drafting contracts, researching case law, and assisting with other higher-level work. The next generation of lawyers will either be AI natives or risk becoming Luddites.
More and more law schools recognize that AI literacy must be part of their curricula, and it will inevitably become a key metric in program rankings. The National Law Review, alongside established leaders in tech and legal education, plans to provide the first rankings of law school AI programs in the Fall of 2026.2 The NLR Law School AI program rankings will be designed to help faculty and administrators evaluate and benchmark their programs. Perhaps more importantly, it will be a resource for applicants to evaluate how law schools are incorporating AI literacy into their curriculum. The NLR and its partners will share more on their planned ranking system – metrics, data sources, and law school participation – in the coming months.
Employers will demand that new hires have the tools to practice law in the digital age. Being able to compare law schools, and prospective hires, on an “apples-to-apples” basis calls for a ranking system. The emergence of independent organizations, like the NLR, to assess an institution’s commitment to incorporate essential AI skills will be an important step for the legal profession in this time of rapid adoption of AI.
There is no doubt that AI literacy is going to be a key metric in rankings moving forward. Law schools, like MC Law, that are at the vanguard of this digital transformation will be noticed by both law school applicants and employers.

1 Mr. Roberts also serves on the editorial board of The National Law Review’s “A&I and the Law” newsletter and several other of its AI-themed NLR-affiliated properties.
2 Academic institutions, researchers, or law students who are interested in participating in the design or data collection stage of the NLR Law School AI program ranking system may contact Gary Chodes at [email protected].