Why School Districts Should Consult With Legal Counsel Before Signing a Standard AIA Contract
Numerous school referenda were approved in the 2025 Spring election this week, and construction is now on the horizon. Let’s consider the contracts that will become the foundation of these building projects.
The American Institute of Architects (AIA) provides a comprehensive suite of contracts designed to streamline the creation and management of construction agreements. While these forms are expertly crafted to anticipate challenges in construction projects, they are primarily tailored for commercial use rather than for governmental entities such as school districts. As a result, AIA contracts may not fully address the unique legal and regulatory considerations school districts must navigate when undertaking construction projects. To ensure compliance with state laws and to safeguard their interests, school districts should carefully review and modify these contracts as necessary. Most importantly, school districts should consult their legal counsel before executing any construction or design contract to ensure it aligns with their specific requirements and legal obligations.
It’s important to note that any unrevised AIA contract is essentially a base form and represents just the beginning of the drafting process. Created by an association that represents architects, these agreements require careful review and revision by the school district’s counsel so that the interests of the owner-district are also incorporated. Representation by counsel during the development of the contract documents contributes toward ensuring a more balanced agreement that protects the district’s interests. This is crucial in creating a fair and equitable contractual relationship among the parties.
No standard form can perfectly accommodate every project. Each construction project and each school construction project are unique. A contract that works for one project or district may require modifications to suit the specific needs of another. Thorough review and customization are essential to ensure that AIA construction and design contracts align with the district’s wishes, requirements and legal obligations.
AIA construction contracts typically include the architect’s agreement, the contractor’s contract, and the general conditions, all of which must be consistent with one another. A common mistake is revising one of these agreements without carefully reviewing the other two documents, potentially creating conflicts between provisions.
Revisions to the base agreements might include inserting provisions that address critical steps occurring during a pre-referendum phase of a project. For instance, the parties may agree to add contract terms that reflect the contractor’s commitment to provide referendum support services such as contributing to strategy development, research, community engagement, and/or graphic design, copywriting, and editing of referendum materials. Moreover, the construction contract should be modified to require strict adherence to the plans and specifications while granting the district’s facility manager the right to observe the work during any phase of construction. The contract should include a warranty ensuring high-quality craftsmanship and materials that meet required standards. Provisions should also be added to minimize disruption to school operations and to enforce compliance with the district’s or the school’s access policy during construction.
Similarly, the design agreement should clearly outline the school district’s expectations for conceptual design, allow the facility manager opportunities to review the design, require the designer to incorporate all legal requirements, and define the designer’s responsibility for inspecting the work. Finally, it is up to the school district to establish the insurance requirements in the contracts. AIA documents do not specify coverage amounts, as these figures must be determined based on the specific project needs and on the guidance of the district’s insurance broker.
It has been the intention of this update to shed light on some of the reasons why consulting an experienced construction law attorney is invaluable when a district begins the process of contract review and development. While AIA contracts are widely recognized as the industry standard for construction agreements, these agreements should be improved upon to best serve the interests of the school district and to level the playing field between all parties.
OCR Provides Further Guidance About When DEI Violates Title VI
On February 14, 2025, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) issued a Dear Colleague Letter (“DCL”) which explained that schools had “discriminated against students on the basis of race, including white and Asian students” and had “justify[ed] their discrimination “under the banner of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (“DEI”)[.]” Hunton’s analysis of this DCL is available here.
On March 1, 2025, the OCR issued further guidance on Title VI in the form of Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”). These FAQs clarified the DCL’s stance toward illegal DEI programming. The FAQ explained that whether DEI programming violates Title VI does not depend on the use of terminology – including “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion,” – but rather on whether the DEI programming restricts or discourages access based on race, or creates a race-based hostile environment.
The FAQs explained that, where DEI programming is race-neutral, OCR may consider the following factors to determine whether a school acted with a racially discriminatory purpose:
Whether members of a particular race were treated differently than similarly situated students of other races;
The historical background or administrative history of the policy or decision;
Whether there was a departure from normal procedures in making the policy or decision;
Whether there was a pattern regarding policies or decisions towards members of a particular race;
Statistics demonstrating a pattern of the policy or decision having a greater impact on members of a particular race; and
Whether the school was aware of or could foresee the effect of the policy or decision on members of a particular race.
The DCL is recommended reading for all institutions of higher education seeking to navigate their responsibilities under Title VI, but there are additional key points for colleges and universities to consider as they are navigating these issues.
Access to Educational Opportunities
The DCL referred to race-based affinity spaces, housing, or graduation ceremonies as discriminatory, and the FAQ contextualized this, explaining that such programming is discriminatory if it “allows one race but not another or otherwise separates students, faculty, or staff based on race.”
The DCL referred to curriculum, and the FAQ clarified “nothing in Title VI, its implementing regulations, or the Dear Colleague Letter requires or authorizes a school to restrict any rights otherwise protected by the First Amendment.” In addition, the FAQ balances this statement by reiterating schools’ obligations to prevent a hostile environment and address racial harassment. In determining whether certain curriculum discussing race from a historical and sociological perspective would qualify as creating a hostile environment, the FAQ noted that such discussions may be considered hostile in an elementary school, but not out of place in a university classroom.
Creation of a Hostile Environment based on Race
The FAQ provided examples of school activities that could create a hostile environment by requiring employees or students to:
Engage in political activism such as protests or privilege walks.
Embrace specific perspectives on race-related issues, and investigating or disciplining them if they do not.
Participate in trainings, orientations, coursework, or courses that reinforce racial stereotypes, challenge speech protected under the First Amendment.
Accept different disciplinary measures based on their racial group.
The FAQ clarified that schools are permitted to continue cultural programming and discussions on race-related topics, provided they do not limit access or create a racially hostile environment. In assessing programming, schools should consider whether it would discourage member of all races from attending.
While OCR has tempered its stance on race-related programs and educational access with the FAQ, it is recommended that schools continue to take steps to review policies, procedures, and practices, including those involving admissions and access to academic, extracurricular, and financial support programs to ensure compliance with Title VI.
Layoffs at the Dept. of Education May Impact Office for Civil Rights Enforcement
On the evening of March 11, 2025, civil servants at the U.S. Department of Education’s offices in Washington, D.C. and throughout the country began receiving reduction in force notices. The Department announced that affected staff are expected to be put on administrative leave starting March 21, 2025 and their last day will be June 9, 2025.
While the Department has reiterated the importance of colleges and universities complying with federal antidiscrimination laws, including Title VI, through recent Dear Colleague Letters, Q&As, and enforcement actions in recent weeks – one of the offices most heavily impacted by Tuesday’s workforce reduction was the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
OCR is tasked with enforcing the following federal civil rights laws at colleges and universities that receive federal financial assistance (as well as public elementary and secondary schools):
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin;
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination based on sex;
Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination based on disability;
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination based on disability by public entities; and
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, which prohibits age discrimination.
OCR enforces these laws through directed investigations and compliance reviews, but mostly by responding to and investigating complaints of discrimination filed by anyone who believes that a college or university has discriminated against someone based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age.
By Wednesday, March 12, 2025, it was reported and confirmed by the Department of Education that the Department’s reduction in force materially impacted seven of OCR’s 12 regional offices. As a result, OCR regional offices in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, and San Francisco may be closed. These regions investigate complaints against colleges and universities (and public elementary and secondary schools) in 25 states and 2 U.S. territories.
The impact is already being felt. Staff in the affected regional offices can receive emails, but can no longer respond to emails, make phone calls, or conduct video conference. Staff are expected to start administrative leave on or around March 21, 2025, and are supposed to have transferred their case loads to other career civil servants or political appointees by then.
On Thursday, March 13, 2025, Attorneys General from 20 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the staff terminations at the Department of Education and requesting injunctive relief. In State of New York, et al. v. McMahon, et al., 1:25-cv-10601 (D. Mass), among other claims, the states allege that the reduction in force will hobble the Department’s ability to perform it statutorily-mandated functions, including enforcing federal civil rights laws.
Given that OCR announced one day before the reduction in force the importance of its Title VI antisemitism enforcement actions against 60 colleges and universities, key questions for colleges and universities in the affected regions are:
Who do we contact about pending cases?
Will scheduled meetings, interview, and on-site investigations go on as planned?
Where do we send in the college’s data response, if one is due?
Will a pending case still be processed by OCR and what process will OCR use?
The last question is one that higher education and civil rights attorneys have been watching carefully. Colleges and universities are used to relying on OCR’s Case Processing Manual (last updated February 19, 2025) to understand their rights and resolution options at the Office for Civil Rights. But what if OCR or the Department of Education is closed? Will responsibilities be transferred to the Department of Justice? Will individual states pick up oversight if one of their state laws apply? Or will complainants take their concerns not to a federal or state agency, but to a court?
New Trump EO Aims to Eliminate Department of Education
On March 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO), “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities,” directing the secretary of education “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education ….”
The EO’s stated primary goal is to return the “authority” over education to the states. The EO does not provide a plan for “closure.” It reiterates that the use of Department of Education funds for any program or activity aimed at promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion or “promoting gender ideology” will be terminated.
The White House also issued a fact sheet providing more insight into the administration’s motivation and goals with respect to K-12 education. The fact sheet emphasizes the administration’s advocacy for school choice programs, also known as vouchers, that allow families to use public funds to send their children to faith-based and other private schools.
Notably, the Department and many of its functions were created by statute and cannot be eliminated without an act of Congress. Termination of half the Department’s staff in recent weeks has raised questions about its capacity to continue mandated functions.
It is not immediately clear what additional steps the administration intends to take or how that will impact individual educational institutions.
New York AG Settles with School App
The New York Attorney General recently entered into an assurance of discontinuance with Saturn Technologies, operator of an app used by high school and college students. The app was designed to be a social media platform that assists students with tracking their calendars and events. It also includes connection and social networking features and displayed students’ information to others. This included students’ location and club participation, among other things. According to the NYAG, the company had engaged in a series of acts that violated the state’s unfair and deceptive trade practice laws.
In particular, according to the attorney general, although the app said that it verified users before allowing them into these school communities, in fact anyone could join them. Based on the investigation done by the AG, the majority of users appeared not to have been verified or screened to block fraudulent accounts. In other words, accounts that were not those of students at the school. This was a concern, stressed the AG, as the unverified users had access to personal information of students. The AG argued that these actions constituted unfair and deceptive trade practices.
Finally, the AG alleged that the company did not make it clear that “student ambassadors” (who promoted the program) received rewards for marketing the program. As part of the settlement, the app maker has agreed to create and train employees and ambassadors on how to comply with the FTC’s Endorsements Guides by, among other things, disclosing their connection to the app maker when discussing their use of the app.
Putting It Into Practice: This case is a reminder to review apps directed to older minors not only from a COPPA perspective (which applies to those under 13). Here, the NYAG has alleged violations stemming from representations that the company made about the steps it would take to verify users. It also signals expectations in New York for protecting minors if offering a social media platform intended only for that market.
Listen to this post
Wisconsin Court of Appeals Finds Taxpayer-Funded College Grant Program to Be Unconstitutional
On February 26, 2025, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District II, determined that a program that provided taxpayer-funded educational grants to financially needy students of specific racial, national origin, and ancestry groups was unconstitutional.
Quick Hits
On February 26, 2025, a Wisconsin appellate court ruled that a taxpayer-funded educational grant program for minority students is unconstitutional, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA).
The court’s decision to halt the Minority Undergraduate Retention Program underscores the broader implications of the SFFA ruling, suggesting that race-based considerations in state-funded educational assistance programs may also violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Legal scholars and post-secondary institutions are closely monitoring the impact of the court’s decision and the federal government’s recent guidance, which indicates that the SFFA ruling could extend beyond university admissions to other areas, including employment-related decision-making.
Background
In April 2021, five Wisconsin taxpayers filed a lawsuit against the Higher Educational Aids Board (HEAB) and its executive secretary, Connie Hutchinson. HEAB and Hutchinson administer the Minority Undergraduate Retention Program, which was created by the Wisconsin legislature in 1985 to offer grants to certain undergraduate minority students. To be eligible for the grants, the students must be Black American, American Indian, Hispanic, or have ancestors who were formerly citizens of Laos, Vietnam, or Cambodia. In the case, Rabiebna v. Higher Educational Aids Board, the taxpayers claimed that the eligibility criteria (i.e., limiting eligibility to students of these specific racial or ethnic backgrounds) violated both the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution.
The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the HEAB and Hutchinson. The taxpayers then appealed the decision. After the parties’ appellate briefs were filed, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023). In SFFA, the Supreme Court ruled that two universities violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by considering an applicant’s race as part of the applicant’s admissions processes. Therefore, both parties in the HEAB case submitted additional briefing to the appeals court articulating the impact of the SFFA case on its review of the Minority Undergraduate Retention Program in Wisconsin.
The Decision
After evaluating the Wisconsin statutory language and considering the parties’ arguments, the appeals court reversed the circuit court’s ruling, finding instead that the Minority Undergraduate Retention Program violates the law. Notably, the court relied heavily on the SFFA opinion to support its conclusion, citing to it more than one hundred times in its fifty-three-page decision. The court’s analysis also closely tracked the overarching legal framework provided by SFFA. As a result of this decision, the HEAB and Hutchinson are currently enjoined from further administering the grant program and distributing any funds from it.
Implications of the Decision
Some legal scholars initially interpreted the Supreme Court’s SFFA decision narrowly, arguing that it was limited to university admissions policies. However, the HEAB opinion signals that some courts are willing to utilize SFFA’s Equal Protection analysis in other contexts where race is a consideration, including state-funded educational assistance programs. Indeed, the Wisconsin appeals court, citing to SFFA, emphasized that no state has the authority under the Equal Protection Clause to use race as a factor in offering “educational opportunities.” (Emphasis in original.)
The HEAB decision also appears to align with the U.S. Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague” letter dated February 14, 2025, which explicitly states that the SFFA decision “applies more broadly” than just to university admissions decisions. Given this letter and the recent confirmation of Linda McMahon as the new secretary of education, post-secondary institutions may want to consider closely monitoring developments in the federal government’s interpretations of the law post-SFFA, and its subsequent enforcement actions.
Finally, it appears that the SFFA decision will have impacts beyond the realm of education. For example, there are already cases pending in various jurisdictions around the country that cite to the SFFA case to challenge an employer’s consideration of race in hiring or other employment decisions. Therefore, employers may also want to consider following these cases, along with litigation over the Trump administration’s executive orders regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion, to see whether and how the SFFA decision is implicated and whether courts will extend SFFA’s reasoning to cover employment-related decision-making.
Executive Order to Close the Department of Education: What It Means for Your School
On March 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order (“EO”) titled “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities,” directing the Secretary of Education to undertake all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education (“Department”).
What the EO Says
Citing historically low reading and math scores, the EO asserts that the federal bureaucracy has not served students, teachers, or families effectively, and aims to return decision-making power to those closest to the educational process—“States and local communities.”
The EO mandates that existing services, programs, and benefits—such as student loans, Title I funding, and special education support—continue without interruption during this transition, though it provides no details for achieving this continuity. In addition, the EO targets “illegal discrimination” in DEI and so-called “gender ideology” programs, potentially impacting school funding and compliance.
Notably, the EO recognizes its own legal boundaries: the Department, established by Congress in 1979 under the Department of Education Organization Act, cannot be unilaterally eliminated by the President. Any bill to shut down the Department requires 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster—a challenging threshold given the current political landscape on Capitol Hill. And legal challenges are likely to be filed. These lawsuits could delay implementation or reshape the order’s trajectory.
What This Means for Your School and Next Steps to Consider
For local school districts and charter schools, this EO introduces a range of practical and strategic considerations. Federal funding currently constitutes about 14 percent of public school budgets, primarily through programs like Title I, which supports schools in low-income areas, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), which ensures resources for students with disabilities. While the order does not immediately terminate these funds, a successful closure of the Department could lead to their disruption or reallocation. Districts in distressed regions may face additional challenges in maintaining current levels of service without federal support. Charter schools may have to grapple with the potential loss of federal Charter School Program grants (“CSP”), which may constrain their ability to expand or sustain operations.
Additionally, the EO includes a mandate to terminate any program or activity receiving federal assistance that is deemed to engage in “illegal discrimination” under described terms like “diversity, equity, and inclusion” or programs promoting “gender ideology.” For districts and charter schools, this could mean increased scrutiny of existing DEI programs, staff training, or curriculum elements related to gender identity, potentially requiring adjustments to maintain eligibility for federal funding during the transition. Non-compliance could risk funding cuts or legal challenges from federal authorities, while compliance might spark local backlash or litigation from stakeholders who support such programs, placing schools in a delicate balancing act.
The order also raises questions about civil rights enforcement, currently managed by the Department’s Office of Civil Rights. If this function dissolves or transfers, it could lead to an increase in private civil litigation. Additionally, the Department’s management of a $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio may move to another federal entity, such as the Treasury Department. This could affect districts offering dual-enrollment programs or employing staff eligible for loan forgiveness under programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness.
The broader implications of the policy shift represented by the EO may be significant. To prepare, it may be prudent for districts and charter schools to evaluate their dependence on federal programs like Title I, IDEA, and CSP grants. Engaging with your local ISD and with MDE to understand contingency plans may also be appropriate, as well as strengthening internal policies to address potential shifts in civil rights enforcement can help mitigate legal risks in an uncertain regulatory environment.
DEI-Related Executive Orders Move Forward After Fourth Circuit Grants Stay of Preliminary Injunction; Federal Agency Actions
On March 14, 2025, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of the U.S. District Court’s preliminary injunction, which will allow the Trump administration to continue enforcing the Executive Orders (EOs) related to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs while the litigation continues.
The National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Maryland District Court) challenging the constitutionality of the following EOs, arguing they are vague under the Fifth Amendment and violate the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause:
Executive Order 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.”
Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.”
Earlier, the Maryland District Court issued an injunction against three key provisions in the two Executive Orders, effectively blocking the federal government from enforcing: 1) the termination of equity-related grants or contracts by executive agencies, 2) a requirement for federal contractors and grantees to certify that they will not operate DEI programs that violate federal anti-discrimination laws and 3) the U.S. Attorney General’s authority to investigate and initiate civil compliance actions against private sector entities continuing DEI practices.
Federal agencies have taken actions to enforce the EOs. Below are examples of three federal agencies that have issued guidance and enforcement letters to public and private entities on ensuring they are compliant with removing DEI from its policies, practices and other programs.
Federal Agencies: Guidance and Enforcement Letters from the DOE, HHS and EEOC Guidance from The Department of Education
Guidance by federal agencies regarding DEI has been published since the signing of the EOs. In its initial Dear Colleague Letter issued on February 14, 2025, the Department of Education (DOE) advised educational institutions receiving federal funding to stop using race, color or national origin in decisions related to admissions, hiring, promotions, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies and all aspects of campus life.1 Additionally, the DOE advised that institutions are prohibited from using non-racial information (such as personal essays) as a proxy for race when making decisions.2 For example, the DOE asserts that using a students’ personal essays or other materials to determine a student’s race would constitute the misuse of non-racial information when used to make decisions about the student’s admission or status.3 To further clarify its guidance, the DOE shared a frequently-asked-questions (FAQs)4 document stating that “race cannot be used as a proxy for socioeconomic disadvantage.”5
The DOE emphasized that simply using terms like “diversity,” “equity” or “inclusion” is not enough to determine whether a program or policy violates federal law. The DOE’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) will review additional materials for more subtle forms of discrimination. The DOE has stated that institutions failing to comply may face the potential loss of federal funding.6 The department has set up a new website where private individuals can report a school or school district for discriminatory practices.
On March 14, 2025, the DOE and the OCR published a press release that it has launched Title VI and Title IX investigations into 52 universities in 41 states in order to “reorient civil rights enforcement to ensure all students are protected from illegal discrimination.” The departments are looking into the universities’ race-based practices in their graduate and scholarship programs.
Pushback Against DOE’s Dear Colleague Letter
In response to the DOE’s Dear Colleague Letter, 14 state Attorneys General issued guidance7 on March 5, 2025 setting out their position that the EOs and the DOE’s guidance do not change current laws. These Attorneys General argued that the DOE misinterprets the SFFA ruling, and that while schools cannot use race as a factor in admissions, they can still evaluate applicants who discuss how race has influenced their lives—provided the mention of race ties back to “that student’s courage and determination.”8 In essence, these Attorneys General advise that schools cannot factor race into admissions decisions but may “consider the ways… race affected a particular student’s life.”9
HHS Investigates Alleged Discrimination in Medical School and Health Care Workforce Training Programs
On March 7, 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced it is investigating four medical schools and hospitals that may be operating programs for education, training, or scholarships that discriminate based on race, color, national origin or sex. These investigations align with President Trump’s Executive Order 14173. The stated focus is on ensuring that healthcare professionals and students are not excluded from opportunities based on these factors. OCR’s actions are intended to enforce the Trump Administration’s position that DEI Programs violate civil rights laws under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act.
EEOC Requesting DEI-Related Employment Practices of 20 National Law Firms
On March 17, 2025, based on publicly available information, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Acting Chair Andrea Lucas sent letters to 20 law firms requesting each firm’s employment practices with respect to using DEI or other employment programs that would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These firms are asked to create spreadsheets with personal information of each applicant for its diversity internship, fellowship and scholarship programs. The data points include the name, race, sex and GPA of the applicants. If the applicants were selected for these programs, the EEOC asks for the applicants’ compensation during the program, whether they received a full-time associate attorney position, and whether they received additional funds. Additionally, the letters requested similar data in relation to the firm’s compensation and partnership decisions, and whether any DEI or diversity considerations (ex. participation in firm-sponsored or third-party affinity group) play a role in such decisions. The information requested dates as far back as 2015.
What Does This Mean for Organizations and Employers?
Given the rapidity with which new orders, guidance, and judicial decisions are being issued, it is important for organizations and employers to stay as current as possible on legal developments.
All organizations and employers, but particularly grant recipients and federal contractors, should consider reviewing any DEI-related documents, policies, programs, initiatives, affirmative action plans, etc. for potential issues. This may include going beyond the obvious, and evaluating scholarship programs, hiring policies and processes, onboarding and application documents, marketing materials, governing documents, trainings, compensation and performance materials, equity language, mission and vision statements, internship programs and website language.
Organizations and employers may also want to review their workplace facility and pronoun usage policies. These policies and initiatives should apply equally to be lawful. In addition, organizations and employers may want to do department level reviews to ensure all DEI-related documents and materials are properly evaluated.
Finally, federal contractors do have a deadline by which to comply with Executive Order 14173. Thus, they likely will want to put additional resources to this task in the short-term. Other employers should begin evaluating these documents and be ready to show good faith efforts in case of questions from employees or governmental agencies.
[1] Craig Trainor, United States Department of Education (Feb. 14, 2025), https://www.ed.gov/media/document/dear-colleague-letter-sffa-v-harvard-109506.pdf.
[2] Id. at 3.
[3] Id. at 2.
[4] Press Release, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Education Releases Frequently Asked Questions on Dear Colleague Letter About Racial Preferencing (Mar. 1, 2025), https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-releases-frequently-asked-questions-dear-colleague-letter-about-racial-preferencing.
[5] United States Department of Education (Feb. 28, 2025), https://www.ed.gov/media/document/frequently-asked-questions-about-racial-preferences-and-stereotypes-under-title-vi-of-civil-rights-act-109530.pdf.
[6] Craig Trainor at 4.
[7] The Attorneys General of Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, Office of the New York State Attorney General (Mar. 5, 2025), https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/publications/joint-guidance-re-school-programs-guidance-2025.pdf.
[8] Id. at 2 n.7.
[9] Id. at 2.
Federal Agencies Target Universities Amid Antisemitism Allegations
The federal government recently revoked all grants and contracts with Columbia University, citing “illegal protests” and antisemitism on campus. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights also sent letters to sixty universities, warning them of potential enforcement actions if they do not sufficiently protect Jewish students from harassment and discrimination.
Quick Hits
The Trump administration recently withdrew all contracts and grants with Columbia University in response to the anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian protests and allegations of harassment against Jewish students that occurred there in 2024.
The Department of Education sent letters to alert sixty other universities that they could face enforcement actions if they fail to protect Jewish students from harassment and discrimination.
The federal government has a new Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism.
On March 7, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), U.S. Department of Education, and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) announced they were canceling $400 million worth of federal grants and contracts with Columbia University in New York City. The agencies, as part of the new Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, cited “illegal protests” and “the school’s continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.”
The Trump administration and its Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism are targeting colleges that have seen pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel protests on their campuses, protests that the administration is interpreting to be antisemitic and ‘illegal’ according to the recent letters and the prior EO.”
Many universities, including Columbia, experienced protests by students and staff in 2023 and 2024, following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack against Israel and the subsequent ongoing war between Israel and Hamas.
On January 29, 2025, President Donald Trump released an executive order titled “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism.” The order directed federal agencies to report on complaints “against or involving institutions of higher education alleging civil-rights violations related to or arising from post-October 7, 2023, campus anti-Semitism.” It ordered agencies to identify all civil and criminal authorities or actions within their jurisdiction that might be used to curb antisemitism.
On March 3, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a statement indicating a new policy priority to combat antisemitism in higher education. EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas said, “[U]niversities are workplaces, too, and large-scale employers. In addition to Jewish professors on campus, universities employ Jewish staff who work a variety of jobs, all of whom have the right not to be discriminated against or harassed on the basis of religion, national origin, or race.”
On March 10, the Department of Education sent letters to sixty universities across the country, warning of potential enforcement actions if they don’t protect Jewish students from harassment and discrimination.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace harassment and discrimination based on religion and national origin, which includes having Jewish ancestry.
Federal Law on Protests
Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals have the right to peacefully protest in public spaces. Protesting violates the law if it becomes violent, incites immediate violence, or lacks a permit required for the space.
In 2024, although many protesters were peaceful, some campus protests led to violence and property damage, which resulted in arrests.
Next Steps
Universities and colleges may wish to inventory all federal contracts and grants they currently have to better understand their scope. They may wish to carefully document their policies and practices intended to prevent harassment and discrimination based on religion and national origin. They can update their employee handbooks and employee training to specifically prohibit anti-Jewish harassment and discrimination in the workplace.
The EEOC has released a poster that explains workers’ rights if they experience antisemitism at work.
Significant Workforce Reductions at the U.S. Department of Education and Their Potential Implications
On March 11, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education announced that it would initiate a reduction in force (RIF), affecting nearly 50 percent of its workforce. Staff are being placed on administrative leave starting March 21, 2025, with an expectation that the entire workforce will be reduced from 4,133 workers to roughly 2,183. The RIF is part of President Donald Trump’s Workforce Optimization Initiative.
Quick Hits
The Department of Education announced a RIF for nearly 50 percent of its workforce.
Impacted staff will be placed on administrative leave starting March 21, 2025.
Affected employees will receive full pay and benefits until June 9, 2025.
Employees are not expected to work during the deferred resignation, voluntary buyout, or RIF periods.
The impact of the RIF on the overall operations and responsibilities of the department is unclear and potentially far-reaching.
The Department of Education was established in 1979 with the primary responsibility for administering federal elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education programs. The RIF will impact employees across all divisions within the department, including those in formula funding, student loans, Pell Grants, funding for special needs students, and competitive grantmaking.
The department has pledged to fulfill its obligations under all statutory programs despite an anticipated 50 percent reduction in personnel by early June 2025. It is not known how the RIF will affect the department’s overall operations and responsibilities including compliance with the Clery Act, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Campus SaVE, and other student safety measures such as the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and the Emergency Management for Higher Education grant program.
The RIF impact is similarly unclear with regard to the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, the Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Technical Assistance Center, the Family Policy Compliance Office—which oversees student and parental privacy rights and protections under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)—and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), which allows parents to limit collection of student data, including data about religious practices or beliefs, political affiliation, and the student’s or family members’ mental or psychological problems. The department has committed to continue all statutory programs that fall under its purview, such as formula funding, student loans, Pell Grants, funding for special needs students, and competitive grantmaking.
The RIF is the result of several directives issued by President Trump during the first week of his administration. According to a March 11, 2025, press release, the department will place 1,550 impacted staff on administrative leave beginning March 21, 2025, providing them with full pay and benefits until June 9, 2025, and severance pay or retirement benefits ranging from $10,000 to $25,000 based on their length of service. Earlier rounds offered voluntary separation options under the federal government’s Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP) and Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) programs. These programs are authorized by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and allow agencies to offer lump-sum payments or early retirement to employees who are in surplus positions or have skills that are no longer needed in the workforce. The programs are intended to minimize or avoid involuntary separations through the use of RIFs.
The department offered VSIP and VERA opportunities to its employees between January 28 and March 7, 2025, allowing employees to retain all pay and benefits regardless of their daily workload and to be exempted from in-person work requirements (and working) until September 30, 2025, or earlier if they chose to accelerate their resignation. According to frequently asked questions (FAQs) guidance regarding the RIF, employees are not expected to work during the deferred resignation period. They are allowed to get a second job in the private sector and are even encouraged to do so. The FAQs read in part, “We encourage you to find a job in the private sector as soon as you would like to do so. The way to greater American prosperity is encouraging people to move from lower productivity jobs in the public sector to higher productivity jobs in the private sector.” Additionally, the FAQs state that employees are welcome to take an extended vacation while on administrative leave, reading, “You are most welcome to stay at home and relax or to travel to your dream destination. Whatever you would like.” According to its March 11, 2025, press release, nearly 600 of the department’s employees accepted voluntary resignation opportunities and retirement, including:
259 employees who accepted the Deferred Resignation Program
313 employees who accepted the Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment
The employees affected by the RIF come from various departments and units, including those involved in policy-making, senior career executives, and other positions identified for reduction.
The remaining employees impacted by the RIF will be notified by March 18, 2025, and will be placed on administrative leave until their separation date. The department has committed to provide counseling, information, and assistance on their rights and benefits, as well as resources for finding alternative employment or training opportunities.
Key Takeaways
The RIF impact on the department’s ability to deliver on statutory programs, including formula funding, student loans, Pell Grants, special needs student funding, and competitive grantmaking are areas to watch. How the elimination and reorganization of divisions within the department affect services to students, parents, educators, and taxpayers, and other outcomes and challenges will be evaluated and a comprehensive report including the results of the president’s Workforce Optimization Initiative is scheduled to be submitted to the White House on October 8, 2025. This will include workforce reductions, hiring ratios, and large-scale RIFs across various agencies.
In addition, on March 13, 2025, twenty states and the District of Columbia sued the Department of Education and its officials for implementing the RIF. The plaintiffs allege constitutional, statutory, and regulatory violations, in addition to violations of established precedent. They argue that the reductions undermine the department’s ability to fulfill its statutory responsibilities. They also allege that reducing the department’s workforce by half violates separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiffs allege that the RIF is part of an unlawful attempt to dismantle the department and override statutes that create and govern the department’s functions. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the actions taken by the department and its leadership, including an injunction preliminarily and permanently enjoining the defendants from implementing the president’s directive, including the reduction in force.
China Remains Top Source of Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Applications in 2024
According to data released by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on March 17, 2025, China remained the top source of PCT applications in 2024. Reversing a slight decrease in Chinese-originated PCT filings in 2023, China’s PCT filings increased to 70,160 applications up almost 1% on 2023. The United States follows China with 54,087 applications in 2024 – the third consecutive decline.
International patent applications by origin.
Huawei Technologies was the top PCT filer in 2024, with 6,600 published applications, followed by Samsung Electronics (Republic of Korea, 4,640 applications), Qualcomm (US, 3,848), LG Electronics (Republic of Korea, 2,083) and Contemporary Amperex Technology (China, 1,993). Other top Chinese filers include BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., ranked sixth with 1,959 applications and Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co., Ltd., ranked eighth with 1,889 applications.
Top PCT applicants
China’s education institutions also placed highly. Top Chinese universities include Tsinghua University, ranked third among educational institutions with 188 applications and Zhejiang University ranked fourth among educational institutions with 175 applications.
Top PCT applicants by educational institution
The full data set is available here.
ICE Enforcement Actions on Campus
Among the many changes imposed by the new Trump administration, colleges and universities can add one more possible scenario to their list; federal agents appearing on campus to conduct immigration enforcement activities. On January 21, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) rescinded Biden-era guidance designating colleges and universities as “protected areas” for purposes of immigration enforcement and have conducted at least one arrest on university property.
Immigration enforcement is generally governmental agency activity conducted by the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and their actions may include surveillance, interviews, searches, unexpected visits, identify and arrest actions, and arrests. While immigration activities were limited on or near colleges campuses and other protected areas – such as schools, medical centers, and social services centers – by the previous administration, they are no longer constrained to avoid enforcement in certain areas[1] under the current administration. Thus, university counsel and campus law enforcement should be prepared for these activities to occur on campus.
University counsel and campus law enforcement must know – and advise their campus communities – that federal law prohibits interfering with ICE campus related activity and operations. Universities and officers must comply with requests and inquiries related to criminal matters and certain legally authorized court issued process and warrants, and individuals and/or institutions cannot delay, obstruct, impede, or otherwise actively interfere with federal immigration enforcement operations. Any conduct that negatively impacts ICE operations that amounts to obstruction is illegal, and could expose college and university staff and employees, including faculty and students to federal legal liability.
However, state law also applies to the aforementioned government activity. In Massachusetts, for example, campus law enforcement are prohibited from detaining an individual based on civil immigration process or solely on ICE or a designee’s request. Other states may have other laws that apply to campus law enforcement’s interaction with ICE: for advice specific to your state, contact your Hunton lawyer.
University counsel and campus law enforcement may be exposed to DHS and ICE’s enforcement actions on campus in various circumstances. ICE agents may appear with a court-issued judicial search warrant, administrative warrant, or in an investigative capacity with or without a warrant or advance notice. Immigration officers may also continue to be present on campus for regulatory enforcement site visits or to attempt to meet students who are on F-1, J-1, or other similar visas. In addition, many universities and colleges sponsor employees for H-1B visas and permanent residence. Because USCIS still conducts site visits to H-1B sponsors, school officials need to be aware that these may increase and they should be prepared for such visits.
Hunton labor and immigration attorneys offer advice, counsel and training to campus law enforcement, staff and counsel to know their rights and obligations, and help prepare them for the possibility of government action. Please call your Hunton lawyer to learn more.
[1] Enforcement at or near houses of worship is still limited by court order.