Five Lawsuits to Watch in Higher Education in 2026

The Trump administration is at the center of several major lawsuits in higher education this year. The reason is simple: if its actions and policies are fully implemented, they will have a huge impact on the entire industry.

Since President Donald Trump took office, his administration has quickly used federal government levers to reshape a higher education system he has described as "letting students down and hopelessly left-leaning." Many of these actions have quickly faced legal challenges. From attacks on research funding to diversity initiatives, courts are playing a key role in determining the final shape and impact of Trump's policies.

Many cases are still moving through the judicial system, meaning there is still much uncertainty at the start of the new year. Here are some of the key lawsuits we are following this year, most of which involve Trump and his administration.

Harvard University vs. the Trump administration

Since Trump took office, his administration has launched investigations into dozens of universities to push for policy changes and seek payments to the federal government. But even by the unprecedented standards of this administration, its massive policy pressure on Harvard University has been particularly aggressive.

In April, after Harvard refused to accept the government's sweeping demands to address allegations that it failed to adequately protect Jewish students from harassment, the government froze $2.2 billion in research funding to the university. Harvard sued the Trump administration over the funding freeze in late April, then filed another lawsuit after the government revoked its authorization to enroll foreign students, and quickly won a ruling blocking that decision.

The Trump administration has also threatened Harvard's patent revenue and accreditation status. In early September, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, appointed by Obama, ruled that the government's freeze of $2.2 billion in federal funding to Harvard was unlawful. Burroughs found that the government violated Harvard's First Amendment rights, failed to follow due process when freezing the funds, and acted arbitrarily and capriciously. In December, the government appealed that ruling.

At the time, a White House spokesperson insisted that Harvard had allowed harassment of Jewish students to "run rampant" and said "the university will bear full responsibility for its failures." The final outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for higher education institutions trying to navigate the financial and legal risks posed by Trump's actions.

The American Council on Education (ACE) and 27 other higher education organizations expressed this view in an amicus brief supporting Harvard. The brief noted that the impact of the government's actions extends far beyond Harvard, endangering the diversity of the higher education system. Jon Fansmith, ACE's senior vice president for government relations, told Higher Ed Dive in December that the worst outcome would be a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the government, which would set a precedent allowing the government to use similar tactics against any institution it is dissatisfied with at any time.

Harvard is not the only institution to sue over government actions. Before Harvard filed its legal challenge, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and its Harvard chapter had already sued the government, arguing that its actions harmed academic and expressive freedom. The AAUP also filed similar lawsuits over actions against Columbia University and the University of California. In the Columbia case, the judge found that faculty lacked standing to sue, and that decision has been appealed; but in the Harvard and UC cases, the AAUP obtained standing and won favorable rulings. AAUP President Todd Wolfson told Higher Ed Dive in January: "The judges have said the Trump administration cannot freeze federal funds based on unsubstantiated antisemitism allegations. That is not allowed."

Research institutions challenge indirect cost cap

In early February, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced it would cap reimbursement rates for research indirect costs at 15%. This represented a radical policy shift and a potential financial bomb for many research universities—some of which had negotiated indirect cost rates with the government exceeding 50%. Indirect costs include building laboratories, running publicly funded research facilities, and paying salaries for project administrative staff.

The NIH indirect cost cap quickly sparked multiple lawsuits, including one from attorneys general of more than 20 states. In their complaint, the states argued that if the NIH action were not blocked, these institutions' "cutting-edge work to cure and treat human diseases would grind to a halt." Major higher education associations also joined the legal fight, with ACE, the Association of American Universities, and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities filing a joint lawsuit. The three organizations said at the time that the NIH cap was a "self-inflicted wound" for the country, potentially hindering disease treatment research and hollowing out the scientific workforce.

The courts sided with the plaintiffs. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the NIH from implementing the cap; in April, the judge permanently blocked the limit. Despite the setback, other Trump administration agencies followed the NIH's lead—the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Defense all adopted similar caps and were quickly sued. Federal judges have so far also blocked these agencies' reimbursement limits.

The cases are in various stages. An appeals court upheld the block on the NIH indirect cost cap, and the NIH has not indicated whether it will appeal to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the government has appealed the rulings on the Energy Department and Defense Department caps, while the NSF withdrew its appeal in September without explanation. Even with legal victories, research universities remain worried about federal indirect cost cuts. George Washington University, Yale University, and the University of California, San Diego have all cited the threat of reduced indirect cost reimbursements, signaling potential budget cuts or layoffs.

Groups challenge NIH and NSF DEI-related grant terminations

In February, the NIH began systematically terminating all grants containing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) elements and other topics disfavored by the government, such as climate change and gender identity. According to researchers and organizations that sued the NIH in April, hundreds of previously approved grants were stalled. The plaintiffs accused the agency's leaders of "upending the NIH's reputation for rigorous excellence and launching a reckless and unlawful purge to suppress research on topics and people they dislike." They noted that the terminated grants included topics the NIH is legally required to study, many involving deadly diseases, and argued that the purge violated the Administrative Procedure Act, exceeded executive branch authority, and was unconstitutionally vague.

Attorneys general from 16 states also sued in April over the anti-DEI policies, and their case was consolidated with the researchers' lawsuit. In late December, the NIH reached a settlement with the 16 states over delays in grant approvals, agreeing—without admitting the states' claims—not to use anti-DEI directives to restart reviews. In June, District Judge William Young ruled the NIH's anti-DEI directives unlawful and ordered the restoration of grants, totaling more than $780 million. But in August, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order the restoration of grants, and that plaintiffs must pursue claims through the Federal Court of Claims. The high court upheld Young's finding that the NIH's actions were unlawful, but the request to restore grants must be handled separately. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell called the high court's ruling "wrong and deeply disappointing." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the conservative majority opinion for "undermining judicial review of grant terminations by sending plaintiffs to potentially futile multi-forum litigation." The government appealed Young's ruling in June, and the case remains before the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

The NSF conducted a similar grant purge in April, saying it would terminate grants that "do not align with program goals or agency priorities," including research related to DEI, environmental justice, and misinformation. The government again faced legal challenges. In September, a federal judge declined to restore $1 billion in NSF grants that had been cut, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in the NIH case as depriving the court of jurisdiction to restore them. The lawsuit against the NSF's anti-DEI policies remains pending in district court.

Students and faculty challenge Rubio and deportation actions

"In America, no one should fear a knock on the door at midnight for expressing a dissenting opinion." That is the opening line of a lawsuit filed in August by The Stanford Daily, Stanford University's independent student newspaper, against Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, concerning deportation attempts against students with views deemed anti-American or anti-Israel. Represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the newspaper said student journalists had refused assignments related to the Israel-Hamas war or requested removal of their bylines out of fear that their reporting would jeopardize their immigration status. The case is still ongoing; in January, a judge denied the government's motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs are seeking summary judgment.

An earlier lawsuit filed in March by the AAUP and others involved similar issues, stemming from immigration authorities' arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student and lawful permanent resident who was actively involved in pro-Palestinian protests in 2024 and served as the lead negotiator representing students in talks with the university during the spring protest encampment. After Khalil's arrest, Trump called it "the first of many arrests." The plaintiffs argued that the government's policy of detaining and threatening to deport those who criticize Israel or U.S. actions had a "profound impact" on the expressive and associational rights of university community members, including U.S. citizens. AAUP's Wolfson told Higher Ed Dive in January: "Siblings without status are afraid to speak out, and that deprives us of the ability to have deeper, more diverse conversations."

In September, in the AAUP case, District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, ruled that the government's actions were unconstitutional. Young wrote: "This case—perhaps the most important case ever tried in this district court—squarely presents the question of whether noncitizens lawfully present in the United States enjoy the same freedom of speech rights as we do. This court's answer to that constitutional question is a resounding 'yes, they do.'" In a final ruling in January, Young ordered the restoration of the original immigration status of affected members, unless their status had expired, they committed a crime after September 2025, or the government had a legitimate basis under immigration law to change their status.

Texas campus nighttime speech restrictions challenged

In 2019, Texas enacted a law aimed at ensuring "free, robust, and uninhibited debate and discussion" among students at public universities. However, the law included a provision prohibiting students from speaking or assembling in certain campus areas during nighttime hours, raising free speech concerns. In 2025, student groups and faculty organizations filed a lawsuit, arguing that the restriction is unconstitutional, vague, and overbroad. The case entered the litigation phase in 2026, with plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction to block enforcement, arguing that the nighttime restrictions suppress key opportunities for students to express political views. Texas officials argued that the law is designed to maintain campus safety and order, but plaintiffs contended there is no evidence that nighttime activities have caused actual disruption. The court has not yet issued a final ruling, and this case could affect the standard of judicial review for time, place, and manner restrictions on campus speech at public universities nationwide.