- Overview
- Latest Litigation Updates
- Past Litigation
- Policy and Advocacy
- News & Updates
- College Students & Alumni Engagement
The Educational Opportunities Project (“EOP”) strives to guarantee that all students receive equal educational opportunities in public schools and institutions of higher learning. Working with private law firms and community leaders, the EOP has promoted diverse and integrated learning environments, defended diversity in higher education admissions, combated segregation, and restored equity for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. We have advocated for the importance of both school districts’ authority to address racially hostile environments and First Amendment protections for student speech. We have also enforced the rights of students with disabilities and students who are English Language Learners, and challenged discriminatory school discipline policies, student assignment practices, and school funding inequities. Currently, the EOP is leading efforts to protect racially inclusive learning; support PK-12 educational equity, preserve and expand higher education access, and challenge predatory, deceptive, or abusive lending and recruiting practices of for-profit institutions.
We welcome opportunities to collaborate with individuals and organizations from school communities and college campuses across the country committed to advancing educational equity and civil rights. If you’re interested in sharing insights and experiences that can inform our advocacy and shape our priorities, we’d love to hear from you.
Please connect with us via email at education@lawyerscommittee.org
Latest Litigation Updates
Through impact litigation and legal advocacy, the EOP seeks to secure equal justice under the rule of law and advance educational equity and civil rights by protecting racially inclusive learning, combatting for-profit predatory and exploitative practices, preserving equitable admissions policies, and dismantling systemic barriers that deny Black students and other students of color access to meaningful and equitable educational opportunities.
Defending the Right to Learn
Arkansas: Walls v. Sanders
We’re challenging Section 16 of Arkansas’s LEARNS Act, which silences educators and denies students access to critical knowledge. In May 2024, the court partially granted our request to block the law based on students’ First Amendment right to receive information. We defended the preliminary injunction in the Eighth Circuit in April 2025 and now await a decision. Other claims in the case are on hold pending the outcome.
Why It Matters: Section 16 forces educators to self-censor, depriving students of a complete and accurate understanding of history, especially perspectives from communities of color. We’re standing up for students’ rights to a truthful education.
Oklahoma: BERT v. Drummond
In direct response to efforts by local educators to adopt more diverse and inclusive curricula in the wake of the killings of George Floyd and other Black people, the Oklahoma legislature enacted House Bill 1775, a classroom censorship law that sought to restrict discussions about race and gender in K-12 public schools and higher education. Following passage of the law, school districts removed books by Black and women authors from their reading lists and Oklahoma educators were forced to self-censor and change their approaches to teaching to avoid potentially violating H.B. 1775’s ambiguous and vague language, or risk losing their education licenses or certificates.
On behalf of a diverse group of teachers and students, Lawyers’ Committee, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Oklahoma, and pro bono counsel filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to challenge H.B.1775’s implementation arguing that the law is racially discriminatory and impinges on educators’ free speech rights and academic freedom.
Why It Matters: Oklahoma was one of several states across the country that had passed similar laws aimed at censoring discussions around race and gender in the classroom, and this was the first federal lawsuit facially challenging one of these statewide bans. H.B. 1775 is an unvarnished attempt to silence the experiences and perspectives of Black, Indigenous, and LGBTQ+ people, and other groups who have long faced exclusion and marginalization in our institutions, including in our schools. We’re fighting to ensure that students and educators can speak, learn, and teach freely without fear.
Updates:
June 2024: The district court granted a preliminary injunction which blocked many provisions of the law, holding that they are so vague that it is difficult for teachers to know what they can and cannot teach in the classroom.
June 2025: In a win for academic freedom, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that H.B. 1775 does not apply to academic speech in higher education, allowing Oklahoma’s college students and professors to have open and honest conversations about their history. The decision also left in place a preliminary injunction that prevents the enforcement of vague and borderline nonsensical prohibitions on instruction in K-12 schools while the case proceeds.
North Carolina: Hoke County Board of Education, et al. v. State of North Carolina (Leandro v. State)
For nearly three decades, Leandro v. State has challenged North Carolina’s failure to provide adequate and equitable public education funding. In 2022, the state supreme court ordered the transfer of nearly $1 billion to implement a comprehensive plan addressing deep-rooted inequities in the system.
However, a newly conservative court majority reheard the case in 2024. We now await a ruling that could either uphold students’ constitutional right to a sound basic education or jeopardize long-overdue resources and reforms, especially for rural, low-wealth, and historically marginalized communities.
Why It Matters:
North Carolina’s Constitution guarantees every child the right to a sound, basic education. We’re fighting to make that promise real for all students—regardless of zip code or race.
Higher Education Access
Texas: SFFA v. University of Texas at Austin
Following the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in the Harvard/UNC cases, UT-Austin revised its undergraduate admissions policy to prohibit the use of race as a factor. Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) has nonetheless continued to press a lawsuit, speculating that UT’s new policy might still allow race to influence decisions—despite no evidence of this occurring. We are representing student intervenors and defending UT’s ability to maintain diversity through race-neutral, legally permissible means.
Why It Matters: SFFA is attempting to expand the Supreme Court’s decision beyond admissions and beyond use of race to an extreme, negatively impacting higher education access, and eviscerating current legal frameworks. We’re fighting to protect students’ rights and universities’ abilities to foster diverse, inclusive learning environments.
Updates:
July 2024: A federal district court dismissed the case as moot, recognizing that UT no longer used the race-conscious admissions process that SFFA had originally challenged.
November 2024: SFFA appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, seeking a sweeping injunction to block access to information regarding student race, outside of and unrelated to the admissions process.
May 2025: The Lawyers’ Committee participated in oral argument before the Fifth Circuit to discuss why SFFA’s case should not be allowed to move forward.
July 2025: The Fifth Circuit affirmed that SFFA’s claims are moot with respect to UT’s old admissions policy, but remanded the case back to the district court for further briefing and discovery related to the revised policy.
View the case summary, timeline, and supporting documents.
District of Columbia: Equal Rights Center v. META Platforms, Inc.
In collaboration with the Digital Justice Initiative, the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, along with Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Equal Rights Center (ERC) against Meta for its discriminatory ad delivery practices. The lawsuit alleges that Meta’s ad delivery algorithms disproportionately steer for-profit college ads to Black users while disproportionately providing white users with ads for public nonprofit universities.
Why It Matters:
According to the lawsuit, by steering different educational ads to users based on race, Meta’s ad system perpetuates systemic inequities by denying Black students information about educational opportunities and steering them toward for-profit schools, which often provide lower quality education at a greater cost.
“Digital redlining, especially in today’s higher education market, sends the unmistakable signal that Black people belong in some institutions but not others. This lawsuit aims to make it clear that no corporation — not even a Big Tech company as powerful as Meta — should be allowed to profit from the discriminatory treatment of Black students and consumers.” – Damon Hewitt
Updates:
July 2025: The D.C. Superior Court denied Meta’s motion to dismiss our lawsuit, allowing us to move forward in challenging how its AI-driven ad system disproportionately targets Black users with ads for for-profit colleges.
View the case summary, supporting documents, and other legal resources
Illinois: Hemphill v. Cardona
On May 19, 2022, the Lawyers’ Committee, the National Student Legal Defense Network, and the National Consumer Law Center filed a lawsuit against U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona and the Department of Education on behalf of former Westwood College students who have been waiting nearly six years for the Department to award them relief from loans incurred by Westwood’s deceptive and misleading tactics.
On August 30, 2022, the U.S. Department of Education announced it was granting loan forgiveness relief to roughly 79,000 former students at Westwood College, based in part on the evidence submitted to the Department by the Colorado and Illinois attorneys general.
Since that time, we have worked to ensure that the Department of Education followed through on this commitment. As of May 2025, over 60,000 of the affected borrowers had obtained complete debt relief, with the Department still working to effectuate discharges for the remaining 19,000 borrowers. Those pending debt relief had more complex loans, but the Department has committed to effectuating the remaining discharges as expeditiously as possible.
Why It Matters:
Black borrowers and other students of color are overrepresented in and targeted by low-quality, high-cost institutions and have faced disproportionate burdens as our nation has shifted towards debt-financed higher education. For-profit colleges, in particular, cluster in communities of color and engage in predatory practices that often target historically marginalized groups, thereby exacerbating extant racial wealth gaps and leaving students and their families worse off than when they started.
EOP Past Litigation
Oklahoma: Johnson et.al v. The University of Oklahoma
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma filed an amicus brief in support of the University of Oklahoma’s (OU) motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit filed by three white OU students who claim that the school denied them financial aid because of systemic discrimination that favors Black students. However, the plaintiffs’ lawsuit provides no support for their far-reaching allegations beyond sheer speculation, and blinks the history and reality of the experiences of Black OU students in ways too numerous to count.
Why It Matters: This lawsuit that targets financial support for hardworking Black students appears to be part of an insidious trend to attempt to expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA by advancing an interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI that lowers the bar to challenge higher education policies – race-neutral or otherwise – that may positively impact racial diversity and support students of color on campus.
“We stand on watch to fiercely fight back these cowardly attempts to weaponize a civil rights law against the very students it was intended to protect.” – Chavis Jones, Counsel, Educational Opportunities Project
Case: Coalition for T.J. v. Fairfax County School Board
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, along with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, ACLU Foundation of Virginia, the National Coalition for Schools Diversity, the Poverty & Race Research Action Council, and the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, filed an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in support of the defendant-appellant in Coalition for T.J. v. Fairfax County School Board. The plaintiffs argued that the public school board violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause when it overhauled the admissions criteria at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. On a thin record of disputed evidence proffered at summary judgment, the District Court remarkably agreed and issued a ruling that threatened to strip school communities of the power to address unjustified barriers to equal educational opportunity. The Fourth Circuit reversed and the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ application for certiorari.
Why It Matters: The plaintiffs in this case attempted to frame race-neutral policies designed to ensure equal access to a public school as a discriminatory purpose triggering strict scrutiny. This framing strongly contradicts many years of Supreme Court precedent, and it is harmful to students and everyone within school communities.
Case: Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence Corp. v. The School Committee for the City of Boston, et.al.
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, along with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, ACLU Foundation of Massachusetts, and the National Coalition for Schools Diversity, filed an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in support of the defendants-appellees in Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence Corp. v. The School Committee for the City of Boston, et.al.. At its core, this case concerned whether the city of Boston may consciously pursue diversity– racial, socioeconomic, and geographic diversity—in its public schools through race-neutral means. It also considered whether instead of the above, as Appellants argued, a race-neutral school admissions policy is subject to strict scrutiny and presumed unconstitutional if the policy was selected in part based on a belief that it would advance student body diversity. The District Court properly rejected that argument, the First Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ application for certiorari.
Case: Students for Fair Admissions Inc. vs. Harvard College
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law represented a multiracial and multiethnic group of Harvard students, alumni, and prospective students who were defending the university’s right to consider race as one of many factors in the admissions process. The anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions claims that the policy unlawfully discriminates against Asian-American applicants.
View the case summary, timeline, and supporting documents.
Case: Students for Fair Admissions Inc. vs. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law represented a diverse group of prospective and current students, as well as alumni, to showcase how the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s race-conscious admissions policy helped to increase diversity and give all qualified students opportunities. The anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions insists that UNC’s admissions policy unfairly uses race to give significant preference to underrepresented minority applicants, to the detriment of white and Asian-American applicants.
View the case summary, timeline, and supporting documents.
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and pro bono counsel filed amicus briefs on behalf of itself and several other organizations supporting the plaintiffs in three lawsuits challenging new Title IX rules that weaken protections against sexual harassment enforcement in schools. Title IX is a landmark federal civil rights law and is crucial to fostering a safe and supportive school experience by ensuring students can benefit from educational opportunities free from discrimination on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment. However, former education Secretary Betsy DeVos issued a new rule in 2020 that ushered in a restrictive era of Title IX regulatory enforcement. As argued in the amicus briefs, these changes heavily favor alleged perpetrators of sexual harassment and have a particularly chilling effect on students of color, students with disabilities, and LGBTQ students.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et.al. v. Elisabeth DeVos, et al.
State of New York, et.al. v. U.S. Department of Education and Elisabeth DeVos
Victim Rights Law Center, et. al. v. Elisabeth DeVos, et.al.
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, along with the National Women’s Law Center, Lambda Legal, and more than 30 other organizations, filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in B.L. vs. Mahanoy Area School District. The case involves a 14-year-old high school student who was suspended from her school’s cheerleading team for using expletives on her personal social media, off school grounds, on a weekend, and without mentioning the school. Our amicus brief asks the court to ensure that its ruling allows schools to address harmful speech that occurs off-campus, such as bullying, harassment, and threats of violence, while also making clear that certain student off-campus speech remains protected under the First Amendment, including political speech and harmless speech like B.L.’s.
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and pro bono counsel represented a group of current and former students from four historically Black colleges and universities in Maryland, who claim that the state deliberately underfunded and undermined the academic programs at their schools. The students argued that Maryland let other state colleges duplicate programs that had previously attracted a diverse student body to the HBCU’s, and therefore, directly impeded enrollment at the HBCU schools.
View the case summary, timeline, and supporting documents.
In 2020, the Idaho State Legislature passed, and the governor signed, an anti-trans law called HB500. The harmful law bans women and girls who are transgender and many women and girls who are intersex from participating in sports. The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the National Women’s Law Center, and attorneys from Hogan Lovells and 60 other organizations, filed an amicus brief, arguing that the rights of transgender student-athletes must be protected from sexual discrimination and harmful legal targeting.
In October of 2010, the Lawyers’ Committee, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and pro bono counsel filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of New Orleans students with disabilities against the Louisiana Department of Education pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiff students claimed that, following the decentralization of public-school governance in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, students with disabilities were denied admission to public schools, prevented from accessing special education services, and removed from school as a consequence for behaviors related to their disabilities. In March of 2015, the parties entered into a Consent Judgment, which was approved by the federal district court. Monitoring continues to this day.
Case: Smith et al. v. Regents of the University of California
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and ACLU regional offices in California filed an amicus brief in an appeal of a preliminary injunction enjoining the consideration of SAT/ACT scores by the University of California (UC) Regents’ system. The brief highlights the racial disparities and built-in racial biases associated with the tests, as well as the UC system’s admission that those tests are discriminatory and unreliable indicators of college success. This brief supports a complaint filed by a coalition of students and education advocacy groups alleging that the UC system’s use of standardized test scores in admissions violates state anti-discrimination laws by unlawfully disadvantaging students of color, students with disabilities, and students with lower income and wealth.
Case: T.R. et al., v. School District of Philadelphia
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed an amicus brief with other organizations in support of a class action filed by parents of English learner students who receive disability services against the School District of Philadelphia. The parents allege that thousands of parents and their children are illegally denied the opportunity to participate fully in the special education process because they don’t understand or speak English, and the district has failed to provide translation and interpretation services. The amicus brief demonstrates the historical importance of class actions in vindicating critical civil rights, and urges the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the lower court’s denial of class certification.
Case: New York Legal Assistance Group v. Elisabeth DeVos
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and co-counsel submitted an amicus brief in support of plaintiff seeking to invalidate the U.S. Department of Education’s 2019 Borrower Defense Rule, which reverses vital protections to address the well-documented emergence of illegal practices by predatory, for-profit schools. The amicus brief highlighted how the rule’s implementation will inflict disproportionate harm on low-income Black students and other students of color.
Case: In re Renewal Application of Team Academy Charter School, et al.
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed an amicus brief urging the New Jersey Supreme Court to require the Commissioner of Education to meaningfully determine whether charter school expansions will have a segregative effect or disrupt the public school districts’ ability to provide a thorough and efficient education to all of its students. This challenge by the Education Law Center (NJ) comes after the New Jersey Commissioner of Education approved seven charter school expansion applications, even though evidence in the administrative record suggests that these expansions will increase segregation based on race, language and disability.
Case: Biden v. Nebraska & Department of Education v. Brown et.al (2023)
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, joined by co-counsel Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and 21 other advocacy organizations, filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold the lawfulness of the Biden-Harris administration’s student debt relief program which we believe to be fully consistent with the letter and spirit of the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (“HEROES”) Act. The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri overturning the student debt relief program that stood to benefit millions of borrowers.
Why It Matters: Every student deserves the opportunity to achieve their full potential, but the $1.7 trillion student loan crisis is crushing individuals, families, and our economy, with the weight of this burden disproportionately harming women and Black and Latino borrowers. The benefits of the plan would have been far-reaching and substantial: it was anticipated that the first $10,000 of debt relief would move over half a million Black borrowers from a negative to a positive net worth, thus helping to counter the negative economic effects of the pandemic.
“With the gut punch on affirmative action, followed by the sucker punch on student debt relief, a majority of this Court is trying to remake the law…Student debt is a symptom of an overarching problem: an education system that is unaffordable, inaccessible and inequitable. We must do more to ensure this system fairly serves our nation’s students who rely on it.” – Damon Hewitt, president & executive director, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Case: Steven C. v. Bureau of Indian Education, et.al (2021)
The Lawyers’ Committee, as a member of the Education Civil Rights Alliance, filed an amicus brief alongside the Juvenile Law Center, National Center for Youth Law, and 11 other advocacy groups in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in support of students at Havasupai Elementary School, a K-8 school operated by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), who alleged that the BIE had failed its statutory duties to provide basic special and general education at the school. The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona held that, even if the BIE had legal obligations to the named plaintiffs regarding their education, and even if the BIE had violated those obligations, the Court could not provide relief to any plaintiff who transferred, dropped out, or graduated from HES after this suit was filed. Our brief argued that the District Court did in fact have the power to grant all Havasupai Tribe members ever named as plaintiffs in this lawsuit the equitable remedy of compensatory education. A three-judge panel unanimously reversed the district court’s ruling, siding in favor of the tribe members.
Why It Matters: The Havasupai youth had suffered due to the BIE’s admitted failure to meet its legal mandate to provide these children with an education to which they were legally entitled. In the wake of Brown, multiple courts made clear that a court has the equitable power to grant compensatory education as a remedy to ensure students facing barriers to their education—whether due to disability, language, or vestiges of the formerly segregated public school system—receive an adequate education. Given the discrimination the Havasupai had endured, compensatory education was appropriate and necessary here, and fell squarely within the Court’s equitable authority.
Case: State of Washington v. DeVos (2020)
The Lawyers’ Committee and the National Immigration Law Center filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Black Alliance for Just Immigration and other organizations in support of the State of Washington’s lawsuit intended to prevent the Department of Education from imposing unwarranted eligibility restrictions on emergency Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding that would harm immigrant college students.
Case: E.F. v. Troup County School District, et al. (2020)
The Lawyers’ Committee, in partnership with the Education Civil Rights Alliance, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and several other advocacy groups filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in support of a Georgia student (and parent) who filed a lawsuit in federal court against unconstitutionally vague school policies that led to his expulsion from school for filming a hip-hop music video off campus. The federal lawsuit was stayed pending their administrative appeal of the expulsion to the Georgia State School Board. Our brief challenged the stay, arguing that: (1) students need access to federal courts to vindicate their constitutional rights because appeals to the school board do not afford the same protections as federal litigation; (2) federal courts must have power to review unconstitutionally vague school disciplinary provisions that violate students’ rights to freedom of expression, due process, and equal protection; and (3) when schools reach into the home and discipline students, parents need access to federal courts to protect their Fourteenth Amendment rights to direct the upbringing of their children.
Why It Matters: Vague provisions of school codes that punish alleged “gang activity” off campus have the dangerous potential to violate students’ right to freedom of expression and due process rights to education, and such vague language grants school administrators wide enforcement discretion, leading to the disproportionate discipline of Black students. If students – and their parents – cannot seek redress in federal court in cases where school discipline exceeds on-campus authority and reaches into the home, then they don’t merely shed their constitutional rights once they enter the school house gates but abandon them for the duration of their childhood.
Case: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Navient (2019)
The Lawyers’ Committee in partnership with the Student Borrower Protection Center, Center for Responsible Lending, the SeniorLAW Center, New Jersey Citizen Action, and Community Legal Services of Philadelphia filed an amicus brief in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in support of Pennsylvania’s lawsuit against Navient Corporation, which alleged that the student loan servicer violated Pennsylvania law by steering borrowers towards costly repayment programs or into forbearance. Our brief focused on the impact of improper student loan servicing practices on student borrowers, particularly seniors and borrowers of color, and argued that the Higher Education Act (HEA) does not broadly preempt claims that arise from servicer misrepresentation.
Why It Matters: A broad preemption ruling in this case would deprive injured borrowers of any legal remedy for servicer misrepresentations, shifting the consequences onto borrowers struggling to repay their student loans despite their best efforts. Older borrowers, whose financial circumstances and cognitive changes make them more susceptible to servicer misrepresentations, may lose part of the Social Security benefits they worked for decades to earn. Even worse, misrepresentations to borrowers of color have the capacity not just to harm the borrowers themselves, but to perpetuate and increase the very systemic barriers to socioeconomic advancement that higher education is supposed to break down.
Case: Manriquez et.al v. DeVos (2018)
The Lawyers’ Committee filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in support of a preliminary injunction by the U.S District Court for the Northern District of California which sought to stop the Department of Education from wrongfully collecting on the debt of former Corinthian college students who had previously been eligible for a full loan discharge because of Corinthian’s fraudulent conduct.
Why It Matters: For years, Corinthian Colleges, Inc. pursued students who had limited financial resources, who had fewer opportunities to pursue higher education, and who specifically sought advanced degrees as a path towards greater economic security—namely people of color, veterans, immigrants, single parents, and first-generation college students. Corinthian promised a better life for these students, but provided neither a legitimate education, nor the ability for these individuals to improve their professional opportunities. In June 2022, the Biden administration announced that hundreds of thousands of students who attended the for-profit chain from its inception in 1995 to its closure in 2015 would automatically get their federal student loans canceled, erasing nearly $5.8 billion in debt.
Case: Student Loan Servicing Alliance v. Stephen C. Taylor et.al. (2018)
The Lawyers’ Committee, in collaboration with the Center for Responsible Lending and the National Student Defense Network, submitted an amicus brief urging the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to reject an association of student loan servicers’ argument that federal law bars states and the District from engaging in any regulatory oversight of loan servicers.
Why It Matters: The brief argues that D.C.’s efforts to regulate loan servicers finds strong support in legal precedent and sound policy to prevent disastrous consequences for the most vulnerable student borrowers and communities, especially borrowers of color. Servicers’ misconduct – in a loan servicing market that is largely unregulated – has significant and, at times, catastrophic consequences for borrowers’ financial lives, especially borrowers of color. Sloppy practices by servicers create obstacles to repayment, raise the costs of debt, cause distress, and ultimately contribute to driving struggling borrowers into default.
Case: Nelson v. Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc. et.al (2018)
The Lawyers’ Committee, in partnership with the National Consumer Law Center and thirteen other non-profit organizations that work on behalf of students and student loan borrowers, consumers, low-income individuals, and civil rights, submitted an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in support of a student loan borrower who sued the servicer of her federal student loans, Great Lakes Education Loan Services, under Illinois’ consumer protection law. The plaintiff claimed that Great Lakes advertised itself as an expert advisor offering to provide individualized advice in each borrower’s best interest, but instead systematically steered borrowers into repayment plans that were in the financial interest of Great Lakes and to the detriment of the borrowers. Great Lakes asserted and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois affirmed that student loan borrowers do not have the right to use state consumer protection law to remedy these misrepresentations. On June 27, 2019, the 7th Circuit reversed and ruled that student loan servicers can be held accountable under state consumer protection laws.
Why It Matters: Loan servicers, which are lenders themselves or are hired by lenders, play a critical role in ensuring student loan borrowers are aware of their options for repayment and avoiding default, and for accessing those options by communicating with borrowers about the repayment of their loans, processing payments, and assisting with problems. When servicers act abusively and deceptively, in this case by systematically steering borrowers into repayment options that are expensive for borrowers and lucrative for servicers, the harm can be long-term and irreparable. Those harms are disproportionately borne by low-income borrowers and borrowers of color and their families. Because of both the statutory limitations and the lack of oversight, the federal government is failing to protect student loan borrowers from unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices. State consumer protection laws are necessary to fill the void.
Case: Renee J. et.al v. Houston Independent School District (2018)
The Lawyers’ Committee along with national and state organizations dedicated to advancing and protecting the civil rights of students with disabilities, submitted an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a case about whether pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Houston Independent School District offered an adequate educational plan for an autistic child. The brief asserts the Supreme Court’s decision in Endrew F. articulated a new, robust standard for measuring whether a school district has denied a student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) that overrules the “more than de minimis” standard applied by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in this case and in the Fifth Circuit more generally. The brief calls on the court to, at a minimum, clarify its standard for determining the adequacy of a student’s special education, in order to bring it into compliance with the Supreme Court’s mandate.
Why it Matters: Students of color are disproportionately classified as needing special education services in many jurisdictions and face a disproportionate risk of being denied the services and supports they need to make meaningful progress. The higher standard set by Endrew F. – that schools must offer educational programs for qualifying students that are “appropriately ambitious,” focused on “challenging objectives,” and “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances” – provides a particularly vital tool for students of color to advocate for the services they require to excel in school and prevent unnecessary school push-out.
Case: Bauer v. DeVos (2017)
The Lawyers’ Committee submitted an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment which would enjoin the U.S. Department of Education’s indefinite suspension of the Borrower Defense Rule which would leave students of color unprotected from the predatory practices of for-profit institutions. The brief details the disproportionate impact predatory for-profit schools’ practices have on students of color, and the long-lasting harm that delayed implementation of the Borrower Defense Rule would have on these students and their communities.
Why It Matters: Delayed implementation of the Rule undoubtedly disadvantages all students who have incurred debt to attend for-profit institutions, but especially harms students and communities of color and presents significant civil rights concerns. Not only are students of color often intentionally targeted by predatory for-profit institutions, which leads to an overrepresentation of those students, but students of color at for-profit institutions also face substantial obstacles discharging improper loans that other borrowers do not face. Students of color are less likely to bring claims against for-profit institutions, and when they do, often bring claims as pro se litigants. The delay of the Rule allows for-profit institutions to continue encumbering racial minorities with substantial student loan debt without providing adequate educational or employment returns, thus widening the racial wealth gap.
Policy & Advocacy
Through policy, advocacy, and community engagement, the EOP strives to ensure that Black students and other students of color have access to meaningful and equitable opportunities in diverse, inclusive, and nurturing learning environments from preschool through college.
Countering the Department of Justice’s Misleading Guidance on Civil Rights Law
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, along with NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, Democracy Forward, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, and the National Women’s Law Center, has developed a fact sheet outlining what organizations who receive federal funding need to know amid recent attempts by the Trump administration to advance its agenda of inequity and exclusion.
With coalition partners, we also released a fact sheet to set the record straight on college admissions essays: In SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC, the Supreme Court was clear: students may write about, and colleges may consider, how race has shaped their lives, characters, and potential contribution to a campus community. College essays can and should help schools see the whole student. Ignoring these perspectives diminishes merit, achievement, and the full measure of student potential.
Why It Matters: On July 29, 2025, the Department of Justice issued “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding on Unlawful Discrimination” to all federal agencies and recipients that purports to help entities comply with federal antidiscrimination laws. Here’s the truth: this memo – replete with inaccurate, misleading, and unsupported guidance – is another attempt by this administration to sow chaos and constrain lawful efforts to pursue diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. It does not—and cannot—change the law. The Trump administration is seeking to take us backward as a nation by targeting federally-funded organizations, state and local governments, and public and private employers. Diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility are fundamental American values.
Combatting Attacks on Students who are English Learners and Guardians with Limited English Proficiency
For more than 50 years, courts and the federal government have consistently and clearly said that federal law protects the rights of students who are English Learners and parents and guardians with limited English Proficiency. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 both require schools to provide appropriate language assistance services to students who are English Learners that enable them to become proficient in English and participate equally and meaningfully in school. Additionally, both laws require schools to provide meaningful communication to parents and guardians with limited English proficiency. In August 2025, the U.S. Department of Education quietly withdrew guidance to school communities about how to meet their legal obligations towards students who are English learners and guardians who have limited English proficiency The administration has also taken other actions aimed at cutting meaningful access to government services by LEP individuals, such as issuing an executive order designating English as the official language, as well as withdrawing other Presidential actions in place for 25 years to help LEP individuals.
What We’re Doing
- The Rights of Students Who are English Learners: FAQ for Students, Families, and Community Leaders: This FAQ provides information for students, families, and community leaders about the rights of students who are ELs and guardians with LEP.
- The Rights of Students Who are English Learners: FAQ for Educators: This FAQ provides information for educators about the rights of students who are ELs and guardians with LEP.
- Know Your Rights: English Learners FAQs: This know your rights card is a resource, highlighting key information that everyone should be aware of and linking to the two FAQs.
Webinar on Impact and Consequences of Official English on Multilingual Learners and Families: With partner organizations, we presented at this webinar to provide information on the rights of students who are ELs and guardians with LEP.
The Lawyers’ Committee sent a letter to 150+ colleges, universities, and school superintendents, urging them to reject flawed federal guidance and continue lawful efforts to foster diversity, equity and inclusion on campus and in their classrooms.
Why It Matters: In February, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued guidance – also known as the “Dear Colleague Letter” – to educators and school administrators around the country that offered misleading claims about federal civil rights laws that could scare schools into canceling programs designed to help students of color thrive in the classroom.
Key Resources
Safeguarding Critical Civil Rights Protections
Department of Energy Direct Final Rules
On May 16, 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a slew of Direct Final Rules that, if unopposed, would remove critical civil rights protections from DOE’s regulations, including those implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and other anti-discrimination laws. To push back on this underhanded attack on civil rights, the Lawyers’ Committee submitted its own significant adverse comments to object to the proposed regulatory changes and urge immediate withdrawal of the proposed rules. We also joined nearly 60 coalition partners on comments with respect to the proposed provisions for Title VI and Title IX.
Why It Matters: The Department of Energy provides financial assistance – over $2.5 billion annually through research grants – to over 300 colleges and universities and research institutions. These proposed regulations would eliminate tools the DOE could utilize to ensure that its funding is used in compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws. This latest tactic – exploiting an administrative procedure meant for uncontroversial or insignificant matters to eliminate civil rights protections – is unprecedented and is part and parcel of the Trump administration’s broader agenda to erode measures that prevent and address discrimination, undermining equity for Black people and other communities of color.
Combatting Predatory & Exploitative Practices in Higher Education
For many Black students, earning a college degree is among the most powerful and transformative avenues for disrupting intergenerational cycles of poverty and for narrowing racial disparities in wealth and income. Yet, as our nation has shifted towards debt-financed education, Black borrowers and communities of color have faced disproportionate burdens to make the promise of higher education real. The Lawyers’ Committee is striving to disrupt this predatory climate and demand more robust protections and relief for Black students and borrowers.
What We’re Doing
- Mitigating the harm of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act: The unprecedented cuts to student financial aid in the “Kneecap America Bill” will devastate millions of students—including a disproportionate number of Black students and undermine protections for student borrowers. The Lawyers’ Committee submitted comments on proposed rulemaking to the Department of Education conveying our deep concern about new statutory provisions that risk both exacerbating existing barriers and erecting new barriers to higher education, reversing progress, and returning to a time when advanced degrees were only attainable for people from wealthy families.
- Protecting the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program and the Rule of Law: In a shambolic July 2025 rulemaking session, the Department of Education sought to issue an alarming rewrite of Public Service Loan Forgiveness program that would grant discretion to the Secretary of Education to unilaterally strip employers – including non-profit organizations, universities, school districts, or state and local governments – of PSLF eligibility based on accusations of illegal conduct. This would disqualify eligible borrowers based on unproven accusations against their employers—opening the door to politically motivated attacks on teachers, nonprofit staff, and health workers who engage in work that the Administration does not agree with, including serving undocumented families, providing gender-affirming care, or supporting other marginalized communities.
Public Comment on PSLF Rulemaking (July 1, 2025)
On July 1, 2025, Chavis Jones, counsel in the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, delivered public comment during the Department of Education’s negotiated rulemaking session on Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF).“This country, at its best, is diametrically opposed to the type of viewpoint discrimination that is happening through book bans, bans on history of Black people and LGBTQIA folks, bans on the right to dissent, and the type of rule being proposed here.” – Chavis Jones, Counsel, Educational Opportunities Project, providing public comment during the negotiated rulemaking session.
Comments on Proposed Rulemaking for Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program (September 17, 2025)
Responding to the Department of Education’s destructive efforts towards PSLF, we submitted an individual comment, and signed onto a comment with 63 other organizations. In those comments, we made clear that ED has no authority to rewrite the statutory terms of PSLF, that ED’s desired rewrite creates a significant risk of viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, and that ED is ill-equipped to implement the NPRM. We made clear that ED’s illegal power grab will not only burden hundreds of thousands of borrowers with billions of dollars in debt, but it will also hurt state and local governments, non-profit organizations, and communities across our nation–and that the effects will be felt widely and will disproportionately harm marginalized people including Black, Brown, Indigenous, LGBTQ+, immigrant, low-income communities, and people with disabilities nationwide.
- Improving protections for students & borrowers in Title IV financial aid programs: The Lawyers’ Committee, in partnership with The Institute for College Access & Success and UnidosUS, joined by the Hispanic Federation and the National Consumer Law Center, submitted comments to the Department of Education sharing our deep concerns about the lack of transparency and oversight of institutions receiving Title IV funds that rely on charging students high tuition, enroll them in low-quality programs, and leave them with only limited earning potential.
- Strengthening borrower defense and student loan discharge programs:The Lawyers’ Committee submitted comments to the Department of Education to express our support for the proposed regulatory changes to the William D. Ford Direct Loan, the Federal Perkins Loan Program, and the Federal Family Education Loan Program and to suggest critical improvements to make student loans more affordable for the most vulnerable borrowers.
Principles for Racial Equity in Higher Education
Colleges and universities can, and should, still pursue diversity and racial equity through all lawful means. The Lawyers’ Committee has identified five key principles for racial equity in higher education aligned with key strategies and policy reforms that are equity-focused, practical, and meaningful. We’ve also developed a set of tools and resources to help students, alumni, and key stakeholders hold colleges and universities accountable.
Why It Matters: It is profoundly concerning that some higher education institutions are wavering in their commitment to diversity and opportunity, and retreating from their obligation to address persistent racial inequalities in the aftermath of the SFFA decision and recent threats from the Trump Administration.
Key Resources:
- From Brown to Harvard: How did we get here and where do we go next?
- Holding Colleges and Universities Accountable for Racial Equity
- On-Campus Advocacy Strategies for Students & Student Organizations
- Strategies for Leveraging Alumni Status to Advocate for Racial Equity
Get the Facts on Supreme Court’s Ruling on Use of Race in Higher Education Admissions
The Lawyers’ Committee has developed resources to help answer questions for communities and advocates to better understand the decisions and to answer questions on how to move forward to ensure racial equity and access to opportunity in higher education.
Why It Matters: While the Court did not ban “race-conscious admissions,” the Court’s decisions do undermine precedent, making it more difficult for universities to pursue racial diversity. Such aspirations remain a bedrock principle for creating a thriving multiracial democracy, and nothing in the opinion suggests that diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) programs are at-risk.
Key Resources:
- Navigating the Affirmative Action Rulings: An In-Depth Analysis
- Affirmative Action Q&A
- Open Letter to Higher Education Administrators
- Video Series: Reflections on the One-Year Mark of SFFA
- Affirmative Action in Higher Education: The Racial Justice Landscape After the SFFA cases
Building on the rich history and tradition of inclusive, multi-sector collaboration as a means for addressing complex social problems, the Lawyers’ Committee, in partnership with the Joyce Foundation, launched the REASON Project in 2021 to advance racial and socioeconomic equity at flagship universities in the Great Lakes region. To date, through deep and intentional engagement with university leaders and coalitions of students, alumni, policy experts, and civil rights allies, we’ve helped create space for dialogue and policy change to foster more accessible, diverse, and inclusive campus communities.
Why It Matters: All institutions— especially public colleges and universities, which arguably have a mission to serve their state and communities—have an obligation to improve racial equity and ensure their student body population is more reflective and inclusive of the communities they serve. Unfortunately, too many flagships and other selective public and private institutions fail to address disparate access issues that exclude qualified Black and Brown students. The REASON Project serves as a model for similar advocacy efforts across the country as attacks on equity in higher education intensify and the progress of recent decades faces an existential threat.
Sign-On Letters & Statements
This section features public statements and joint letters we have signed in solidarity with national partners to take collective action to protect civil rights across the country.
OCTOBER 14, 2025: The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, together with the American Civil Liberties Union, submitted a comment strongly urging the Department of Education (ED) to immediately withdraw its proposal and to instead, both follow the required legal process and engage in extensive stakeholder outreach to better inform its proposal. In the comment, we explained that the ED’s proposal perpetuates false, harmful, and biased assumptions; ED’s stated justification does not align with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA); and that ED’s staffing shortages hamper its ability to provide the necessary technical assistance to schools. We also explained that ED’s proposed addition does not take precautions to make sure the data collected is validated; and that ED fails to account for applicant and student privacy considerations. Both the specific data the Department proposes to collect and the justifications it offers suggest that the Department is merely looking to collect data that will support its pre-existing views about presumed improper consideration of race in higher education admissions—views that are rooted in biased assumptions and false stereotypes and that are unsupported by SFFA, the very case on which the agency purports to rely.
AUGUST 12, 2025: The Lawyers’ Committee joined the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and over 65 partners urging Congress to protect students from discrimination in education by adequately funding the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
“We urge you to double the funding for the Office for Civil Rights from the FY2024 enacted level to $280 million to ensure that the Department of Education is able to fulfill its responsibility to protect the civil rights of all students, while also intervening to halt the egregious undermining of civil rights enforcement that has taken place since January of this year.”
JULY 22, 2025: The Lawyers’ Committee joined the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and over 250 organizations to defend the National Education Association’s right to advocate and to implore Congress to reject government retaliation against advocacy groups and oppose efforts to silence organizations advocating for the people they serve.
“The American people deserve a government that serves all of us, not one that silences those who dare to speak up. We urge you to join us in defending these fundamental principles.”
JULY 8, 2025: Following a party-line vote in the Senate HELP Committee to advance Kimberly Richey’s nomination to the Senate floor for a final vote, the Lawyers’ Committee submitted a letter to the full Senate opposing her confirmation. The letter cited Ms. Richey’s record of rolling back protections for students of color, LGBTQ+ students, and students with disabilities during her prior tenure, as well as her public opposition to key civil rights tools such as disparate impact analysis. The Lawyers’ Committee argued that her views and actions undermined civil rights enforcement, particularly regarding school discipline and protections for marginalized students.
“It is essential that OCR be led by someone with a steadfast commitment to protecting the civil rights of all students – a real champion for equal opportunity. Ms. Richey’s record, her publications, and her confirmation hearing cast serious doubt on her ability to adequately serve in this role.”
JUNE 26, 2025: The Lawyers’ Committee joined seven leading national civil rights organizations in strongly opposing the Senate amendment to H.R. 1, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” citing its devastating impact on Black communities and vulnerable populations across the country. The letter outlines how the bill would impose cuts to programs that are lifelines to Black people and other communities of color and encroach on the rule of law and civil rights. In particular, the unprecedented cuts to student financial aid would devastate millions of students—including a disproportionate number of Black students and undermine protections for student borrowers. The signatories urge Congress to reject the bill in its entirety and protect the civil and economic rights of all Americans.
JUNE 25, 2025: The Lawyers’ Committee joined the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and over 40 partners urging the Senate HELP Committee to oppose the confirmation of Kimberly Richey to serve as assistant secretary for civil rights in the U.S. Department of Education.
MAY 20, 2025: The Lawyers’ Committee joined UnidosUS and over 80 organizations in calling on Congress to allocate $1 billion for the English Language Acquisition (Title III) program in the FY 2026 appropriations bill—without offsetting cuts to other education programs. The letter highlights the urgent need to support over 5 million English learners nationwide and criticizes recent efforts to eliminate Title III funding and dismantle the Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA). The signatories urge lawmakers to not only increase Title III investments but also include bill language restoring OELA as a standalone, fully staffed office to ensure effective administration and oversight of services essential to English learner success.
APRIL 29, 2025: The Lawyers’ Committee joined civil liberties, civil rights, and education organizations in opposing the Antisemitism Awareness Act (S. 558), citing serious concerns about its impact on free speech.
The letter argues that the bill’s broad and vague definition of antisemitism risks conflating legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies with antisemitic speech, potentially chilling academic freedom and student activism on college campuses.
APRIL 14, 2025: The Lawyers’ Committee joined 44 civil rights and education advocacy organizations in calling on state education leaders to defend equal educational opportunity amid federal compliance push
The Department’s action – the issuance of a Title VI compliance form – seeks to chill risks undermining lawful, evidence-based practices that foster equal opportunity and support diverse learning environments.
“At this critical juncture, state and local education officials must stand firm in their commitment to equitable education. Efforts that lawfully address racial disparities and promote inclusive school communities are not only legally sound—they are essential to fulfilling the promise of equal protection and equal opportunity.” – Michael Pillera, Director, Educational Opportunities Project
MARCH 26, 2025: The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is proud to be one of 134 civil rights organizations that signed an open letter to the American people: “Our Rights Are at Stake. We Will Not Be Silenced.”
“In America, our government cannot do whatever it wants. And we, the people, have a right to ask for what we need, defend ourselves from abuse, and speak our minds,” the open letter states. “The Trump administration is intentionally attacking any business; law firm; college, university, or school; and organization or government watchdog that disagrees with its policies or challenges its abuses and corruption.”
MARCH 17, 2025: Sixty civil rights organizations call on U.S. Department of Education to Rescind “Dear Colleague” Letter, cite severe inaccuracies and threats to equal opportunity
FEBRUARY 14, 2024: 90+ Civil Rights Groups Urge Congress and the White House to Double Funding for Education Civil Rights Office to Protect Students
JANUARY 8, 2024: The Lawyers’ Committee signed onto the Civil Rights Principles for Multilingual Learner Education developed by the Education Task Force of the Leadership Conference for Human and Civil Rights. The principles identify fundamental elements of multilingual learner education that protect civil rights and advance equity for children whose first language is a language other than English.
AUGUST 22, 2023: The Lawyers’ Committee signed onto a letter drafted by Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC that urged Congress to strike anti-diversity provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act that stoked racial animus, bias, and discrimination and would upend diversity training and affirmative action at military academies.
FEBRUARY 10, 2023: The Lawyers’ Committee, in partnership with The Institute for College Access & Success and UnidosUS, submitted comments to the Department of Education to express support for ongoing efforts to strengthen protections for student borrowers, Black and Latino students, in particular, as they are substantially more likely to be targeted by, and enrolled in, low-quality programs that often lure students in with false promises and then leave them with unaffordable loans and worthless degrees.
“As organizations advocating for greater equity in access and outcomes in higher education, we are deeply concerned about institutions receiving Title IV funds that rely on charging students high tuition, enroll them in low-quality programs, and leave them with only limited earning potential. Lack of oversight and transparency particularly endangers low-income students, students of color, women, first-generation students, and student veterans, all of whom are disproportionately targeted by predatory institutions.”
AUGUST 12, 2022: The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law submitted comments in support of proposed regulations intended to make critical improvements to student loan programs and to encourage the Administration to strengthen certain provisions to further address the disproportionate burdens that Black borrowers and communities of color have faced as our nation has shifted towards debt-financed higher education.
“These programs have the potential to unlock the doors of opportunity in higher education for many students of color and their families. The targets of predatory practices must guide the strategies and allocation of relief; otherwise, already stark racial inequities will be exacerbated and intergenerational debt burdens will become further entrenched.”
MARCH 15, 2022: The Lawyers’ Committee signed onto a letter led by the National Women’s Law Center urging the Department of Education to undo the Trump administration’s vitiation of civil rights protections for students by promulgating regulations consistent with the Title IX’s broad purpose to prevent sex-based discrimination in education.
DECEMBER 3, 2021: The Lawyers’ Committee joined with the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights to oppose the Behavioral Intervention Guidelines Act (BIG Act) and the Luke and Alex School Safety Act which, if enacted, would criminalize children, further harm marginalized communities, and interfere with proven and evidence-based solutions that foster positive school climates conducive to learning and child wellbeing.
JUNE 11, 2021: The Lawyers’ Committee signed-on to a letter that asks the Department of Education to restore and strengthen Title IX protections against sexual harassment and other forms of sex-based harassment. Survivors of sexual assault need a rule that offers healing, dignity, and justice, including a safe and supportive learning environment, and schools need fair procedures to take appropriate action so that harassers can learn from their behavior. These protections are especially important for students of color, among other students with intersectional identities.
JUNE 1, 2021: More than 60 national civil and human rights organizations, including the Lawyers’ Committee, signed an open letter supporting the full inclusion of transgender students in schools, including athletics.
“The civil rights community is all too familiar with those who would maliciously seek to co-opt the language of fairness and equality in the service of an agenda which only advances discrimination and exclusion. We call on state policymakers to reject attacks on transgender students, to commit themselves to meaningfully advancing policies that support equal educational opportunity, and to reassuring all students in the nation’s classrooms that they will have the chance to learn, grow, and thrive.”
FEBRUARY 25, 2021: The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, along with the American Civil Liberties Union and several other organizations, sent a letter to President Biden asking him to eliminate the use of federal funding for police in schools and shift the funding to support mental health professionals.
“Continuing the federal funding of police in schools (including School Resource Officers) funds the criminalization, discrimination, and mental and physical harm of our students. The racialization of policing in our communities has extended to our schools, and shows no signs of stopping. Police violence in schools and communities has traumatized many Black and Brown students; instead of being victimized by police, our students deserve to be physically safe and supported by counselors and other mental health professionals.”
JUNE 29, 2020:The Lawyers’ Committee urged the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland to remove the regular presence of law enforcement from the county’s public schools and reinvest those funds into student and family support systems. Research has shown the presence of law enforcement results in increased harm for students, particularly Black students.
“It is not an open question… a police-free schools future is both possible and necessary to protect the safety and humanity of Black children and all children in Montgomery County.”
JUNE 16, 2020: The Lawyers’ Committee and several other education and civil rights organizations called on 30 major universities to immediately end their consideration of SAT/ACT scores for student admissions and to commit to an equity-based admissions approach in 2020 and beyond.
APRIL 30, 2020: The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, joined by 11 other national organizations, sent a letter urging California lawmakers to repeal Proposition 209, a ban on affirmative action which caused college admissions rates for minority groups to plummet.
“It is imperative that we, as a nation—with California helping to lead the way—shift away from a colorblind framework that accepts the principle of equal opportunity under the law, yet resists deploying policies designed to overcome real, persistent racial and gender inequities and barriers to opportunity.”
Endorsements
The section includes education-related legislative priorities and endorsements.
To ensure all students receive a high-quality education that promotes diversity and inclusion, and are prepared to break down stereotypes and produce cross-cultural understanding, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law has endorsed the Strength in Diversity Act. The legislation calls for developing and implementing new strategies in our nation’s public schools to promote inclusion, which would strengthen the fabric of our nation.
The Examining Educational Redlining in Lending Act
To help protect student loan borrowers of color from discriminatory lending practices, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law has endorsed the Examining Educational Redlining in Lending Act. The bill requires the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to investigate how lenders use educational data when assessing creditworthiness for student loans, make its findings publicly available, and submit a report to Congress about the findings and recommendations for addressing potential racial disparities.
Counseling Not Criminalization in Schools Act
To divert federal funding away from school-based law enforcement and towards evidence-based and trauma-informed services that create positive learning environments, the Lawyers’ Committee has endorsed the Counseling Not Criminalization in Schools Act. Read the endorsement.
Protecting Our Students in Schools Act
The Lawyers’ Committee endorsed the Protecting our Students in Schools Act which would prohibit the practice of corporal punishment in any school that receives federal funding and establish a series of important and much-needed enforcement protections for students and families.
The Bill of Rights for Students and Parents
The Lawyers’ Committee signed onto a letter led by the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights urging Congress to support the rights and inclusion of all students and parents in our public school system by supporting H.Res. 219, the Bill of Rights for Students and Parents and opposing discriminatory, harmful language of H.R. 5, which will only serve to keep vulnerable students less safe.
News & Updates
This section provides timely updates and press releases highlighting our work to advance educational equity. Also included in this section are ongoing blog posts and op-eds featuring team members and key partners leading the fight to defend civil rights and advocate for communities of color, and national and local media coverage where we provide critical civil rights and racial justice perspectives on the news of the day.
Ed. Dept. Offices Will Be Virtually Wiped Out in Latest Layoffs (Education Week) OCTOBER 13, 2025
Several offices are set to lose virtually all staffers except a handful at the director level. Out of 80 to 90 current employees in the office of special education programs, fewer than five will remain on the job after the layoffs play out. The Office for Civil Rights had 605 people and 12 regional offices when Catherine Lhamon, who served as assistant secretary of civil rights during the Biden administration, left in January. The office was one of the hardest-hit by the March layoffs, losing almost half of its staff and seven of its 12 regional offices. Staff in three of the remaining five offices—Atlanta, Seattle, and Washington—began receiving RIF notices last week.
It’s unlikely other entities, such as state civil rights enforcement bodies or courts, can pick up the slack. Before the second Trump administration, OCR had fielded nearly 23,000 complaints in fiscal 2024—triple the number from 15 years earlier—with disability-related discrimination the most common type of allegation, according to the office’s latest annual report.
“When I was an OCR attorney, I had 60 cases at a time, which was still too high, but I could work through a lot of those cases,” said Michael Pillera, director for the educational opportunities project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, who resigned from OCR earlier this year. “I, as an outside attorney, can’t file 60 separate cases in court against school districts, and even if I could, that wouldn’t be helpful.”
Education Department quietly removes rules for teaching English learners (The Washington Post) AUGUST 20, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly rescinded long-standing guidance which discusses the legal requirements for schools to provide meaningful and equal participation for students who are English Learners and meaningful communication with parents and guardians who have limited English proficiency.
“The Department of Education and the Department of Justice are walking away from 55 years of legal understanding and enforcement. I don’t think we can understate how important that is,” said Michael Pillera, an attorney who worked at the Office for Civil Rights for 10 years and now directs the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights.
“Without pressure from the federal government to comply with the law, it is possible that some school districts will drop services,” Pillera said, “particularly as many districts struggle with financial pressures.”
Under Trump, the Education Dept. has flipped its civil rights mission (The Washington Post) | AUGUST 18, 2025
The administration is prioritizing allegations that transgender students and students of color are getting unfair advantages while a backlog of other cases grows. The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights is so short-staffed that some attorneys have as many as 300 cases, making it impossible to devote attention to most of them, current and former employees said. Fewer cases are being closed, and 90 percent of those resolved were dismissed, typically without an investigation, up from 80 percent last year, according to data obtained by The Washington Post.
“There’s no way they can function,” said Michael Pillera, an attorney who worked at the Office for Civil Rights for 10 years. “No one can do that many cases. It’s not possible.”
Colleges Rushed to Comply With Trump’s Anti-DEI Guidance. A Judge Just Struck It Down. Now What? (The Chronicle of Higher Education) | AUGUST 15, 2025
The federal directives struck down on Thursday have been part of a broader campaign against DEI that has prompted dozens of colleges to overhaul offices, eliminate jobs, and even cancel cultural events. “They just kind of decreed this, and they did it in a way that is unsubstantiated, unsupported, and unexplained,” said Michael Pillera, director of the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Department Of Education Publishes New Rules Restricting Student Loan Forgiveness For PSLF (Forbes) | AUGUST 15, 2025
In a shambolic July 2025 rulemaking session, the Department of Education sought to issue an alarming rewrite of Public Service Loan Forgiveness program that would grant discretion to the Secretary of Education to unilaterally strip employers – including non-profit organizations, universities, school districts, or state and local governments – of PSLF eligibility based on accusations of illegal conduct. This would disqualify eligible borrowers based on unproven accusations against their employers—opening the door to politically motivated attacks on teachers, nonprofit staff, and health workers who engage in work that the Administration does not agree with, including serving undocumented families, providing gender-affirming care, or supporting other marginalized communities.
“This country, at its best, is diametrically opposed to the type of viewpoint discrimination that is happening through book bans, bans on history of Black people and LGBTQIA folks, bans on the right to dissent, and the type of rule being proposed here.” – Chavis Jones, Counsel, Educational Opportunities Project, providing public comment during the negotiated rulemaking session.
Consent decrees force schools to desegregate. The Trump administration is striking them down (The Guardian) | JULY 24, 2025
These orders “provide students with really important protections against discrimination”, said Shaheena Simons, who was the chief of the educational opportunities section of the civil rights division at the justice department for nearly a decade. “They require school districts to continue to actively work to eliminate all the remaining vestiges of the state-mandated segregation system. That means that students have protections in terms of what schools they’re assigned to, in terms of the facilities and equipment in the schools that they attend. They have protection from discrimination in terms of barriers to accessing advanced programs, gifted programs. And it means that a court is there to protect them and to enforce their rights when they’re violated and to ensure that school districts are continuing to actively desegregate.”
Inside the powerful task force spearheading Trump’s assault on colleges, DEI (Washington Post) | JULY 18, 2025
“The statutes and regulations set out a really careful process the government is supposed to follow,” said Shaheena Simons, who worked as a civil rights attorney at the Justice Department for 17 years, including nine as head of the educational opportunities section.
Update: 8th Circuit sides with Arkansas officials in case over LEARNS ban on school ‘indoctrination’ (Arkansas Times) | JULY 16, 2025
Although we are disappointed in the Eighth’s Circuit decision overturning the preliminary injunction, the decision’s impact on students and teachers is minimal because the state has committed to a narrow interpretation of the law throughout the litigation. Teachers can still teach, and students can still learn about the history of systemic racism in our country and how to critically analyze current events in light of that history. As this case returns to the district court, we will continue to challenge the LEARNS Act in the district court on the grounds that this vague law violates fundamental constitutional protections under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. – Maya Brodziak, senior counsel
Hope Shattered for Laid-Off Education Dept. Staff After Supreme Court Order (Education Week) | JULY 14, 2025
The loss of employees in [the Office for Civil Rights]—which had nearly 600 staff and 12 regional offices before the Trump administration took office, and saw some of the deepest cuts in the March reductions—will be an institutional loss, said Michael Pillera, a former investigator in the office and now the director of the educational opportunities project for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a nonprofit that advocates for racial justice.
“There are a number of staff members who have been waiting and hoping they could return back to their jobs and continue serving the public and serving school communities, ensuring students’ civil rights,” he said. “And as of today that becomes a lot harder.”
In Win for Academic Speech, Oklahoma Supreme Court Says Higher Ed is Off-Limits from Censorship Law (Press Release) | JUNE 17, 2025
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled today that the state’s 2021 classroom censorship law does not apply to academic speech in higher education. The decision also leaves in place a preliminary injunction that prevents the enforcement of vague and borderline nonsensical prohibitions on instruction in K-12 schools.
“Today’s decision ensures that at colleges and universities in Oklahoma, teachers can teach and students can learn about our country’s history in full – including topics like systemic racism, gender inequality and LGBTQ+ rights,” said Maya Brodziak, senior counsel with the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “Our country needs to acknowledge and reckon with its history of systemic racism — this includes being able to teach and talk about these concepts in our schools. A prohibition on talking honestly about issues of race and racism hurts all students and society.”
Judge: FBI surveillance records on MLK may take years to release (Washington Post) | JUNE 4, 2025
“The motives behind the FBI’s surveillance of Dr. King and SCLC — to vilify and discredit them — cut against any notion that the release of the files will result in increased transparency around Dr. King’s assassination,” wrote the SCLC’s attorneys with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Sumayya Saleh argued in court that there was no legal basis for unsealing the files prematurely, that doing so was “contrary to the interests of the SCLC, King’s family and the public and that the records were beyond the scope of Trump’s order.”
Judge weighs government’s request to unseal records of FBI’s surveillance of Martin Luther King Jr. (Associated Press) | JUNE 4, 2025
SCLC attorneys said the FBI tried to discredit King and their organization by illegally wiretapping King’s home, SCLC offices and hotel rooms where King met with other SCLC officials. Unsealing records of those recordings is contrary to the interests of SCLC, the King family and the public, the lawyers argued. “Since its inception, this case has been about government overreach,” said SCLC attorney Sumayya Saleh.
Judge Considers Early Release of Martin Luther King Jr. Assassination Documents (New York Times) | JUNE 4, 2025
Sumayya Saleh, a lawyer representing the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, said that the larger effort was part of a “deliberate effort to undermine the civil rights movement” and to “discredit” Dr. King’s legacy. She said it was far too difficult to define what documents were solely related to Dr. King’s death and that the government was asking the court to defy its own ruling from 48 years ago.
Discrimination cases unravel as Trump scraps core civil rights tenet (Washington Post) | June 1, 2025
Without disparate impact, the government “would lose a tremendously important tool to remedy civil rights violations that exist and have existed in our country for years,” said Michael Pillera, who worked for a decade at the Office for Civil Rights before leaving in March to become director of the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. “Disparate impact is designed to give everyone a fair chance to succeed.” He noted that the government has long relied on legal doctrines that incorporate disparate impact to bring discrimination cases. If those also were disavowed, he said, “that would leave very little actual civil rights framework standing.”
Trump Administration Says New York Mascot Ban Violates Civil Rights Law (New York Times) | MAY 30, 2025
Michael Pillera, a former longtime senior attorney in the civil rights office who recently left the department, said the Trump administration has argued that it is acceptable to restrict the teaching of Black studies, while saying that a Native American mascot ban is impermissible because it removes representation of a minority group.
“It’s really hard to see how the department believes those two separate ideas coexist,” he said.
What 100 Ed. Dept. Investigations Say About Trump’s Agenda for Schools (Education Week) | MAY 22, 2025
Through at least 100 investigations so far, the U.S. Department of Education has demonstrated its focus to use investigative power and threats to go after diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs at PK-12 schools and higher education institutions, and additionally, to focus specifically on other issues directed by the administration’s agenda.
“The Department of Education is simultaneously the most dangerous in its exercise of power and the most useless in its availability for enforcing the civil rights complaints than it has ever been,” said Michael Pillera, a former investigator in the Education Department’s office for civil rights and the current director of the educational opportunities project for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a nonprofit that advocates for racial justice.
Trump Seeks to Strip Away Legal Tool Key to Civil Rights Enforcement (New York Times) | MAY 9, 2025
President Trump has ordered federal agencies to abandon the use of a longstanding legal tool used to root out discrimination against minorities, a move that could defang the nation’s bedrock civil rights law. In an expansive executive order, Mr. Trump directed the federal government to curtail the use of “disparate-impact liability,” a core tenet used for decades to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by determining whether policies disproportionately disadvantage certain groups. The little-noticed order, issued last month with a spate of others targeting equity policies, was the latest effort in Mr. Trump’s aggressive push to purge the consideration of diversity, equity and inclusion, or D.E.I., from the federal government and every facet of American life.
“This order aims to destroy the foundation of civil rights protections in this country, and it will have a devastating effect on equity for Black people and other communities of color,” said Dariely Rodriguez, the acting co-chief counsel at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
A Gutted Education Department’s New Agenda: Roll Back Civil Rights Cases, Target Transgender Students (ProPublica) | MAY 2, 2025
As with civil rights divisions in other federal agencies that the Trump administration has fundamentally altered, the OCR has worked for decades to uphold constitutional rights against discrimination based on disability, race and gender.
“OCR is the most useless it’s ever been, and it’s the most dangerous it’s ever been. And by useless, I mean unavailable. Unable to do the work,” said Michael Pillera
Fifth Circuit Examines UT Austin After Affirmative Action’s End (Bloomberg Law) | MAY 1, 2025
Sumayya Saleh, an attorney for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, also argued on behalf of intervening students and student groups who want to keep lawful ways of promoting diversity on the campus.
She said that even if other institutions like Harvard and the University of North Carolina, which were the subjects of the Supreme Court litigation, agreed to firewall race and ethnicity data from admissions officers as part of agreements with SFFA, that doesn’t mean the group can obtain a court order implementing such a firewall.
“At the end of the day, it’s not legally required and it’s not something they’re legally entitled to,” Saleh said.
Lawyers’ Committee Civil Rights Legal Experts Denounce Trump Administration’s Attack on Disparate Impact & Civil Rights Protections (Press Release) | APRIL 25, 2025
The White House issued a series of executive orders that seek to weaponize the law against the very communities it was designed to protect. The executive orders attack long-standing civil rights protections across employment, housing, and education by distorting the purpose of disparate impact liability—a critical legal tool that ensures fairness and accountability where discriminatory outcomes persist, even without explicit intent.
“…Disparate impact has long been an essential framework for civil rights enforcement relating to disproportionate discipline, access to resources, over and under representation of students of color in special education, and many other areas.” These executive orders are “…setting the stage for more rampant discrimination against Black students and other students of color in classrooms across the country.” Michael Pillera, Director, Educational Opportunities Project
Education Department withdraws from plan to address discipline disparities for Native students (AP News) | APRIL 10, 2025
The rollback of the South Dakota case reflects the department’s efforts to control school-level decisions on diversity initiatives, regardless of their legal basis, said Michael Pillera, director of educational equity issues at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “It does feel unprecedented, and it does feel extreme,” Pillera said.
Feds end a civil rights agreement on treatment of Native students, citing DEI (The Washington Post) | APRIL 8, 2025
For years, Native American students in the Rapid City, South Dakota, school district were more likely to be disciplined and less likely to enroll in advanced courses than their White peers. In 2010, the Education Department opened an investigation to see if racial discrimination was to blame and just last year, entered into a voluntary agreement with the district in which it would take a number of corrective steps including staff training, better communication with parents and ongoing monitoring. Less than a year later, the Trump administration terminated the agreement citing it as a violation of civil rights law because it included requirements related to diversity, equity and inclusion.
“The nullification of a settled case is unprecedented…They didn’t say, ‘We reconsider our findings, and this is insufficient evidence of a violation.’ Instead they said, ‘This has DEI in it,’”said Michael Pillera, who worked for a decade at the Office for Civil Rights before leaving last month to become director of the Educational Opportunities Project at Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights.
Trump administration ramps up threat to cut school funding over DEI (NBC News) | APRIL 3, 2025
Michael Pillera, director of the educational opportunities project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said that even if the administration doesn’t pull funding, these directives will likely cause educators to back away from lawful activities to avoid creating a target for the Trump administration.
“The letter in no way changed the law,” said Pillera, who worked in the department’s civil rights office until he resigned last month. “All that changed is the department’s behavior and its desire to intimidate and chill activities and school districts.”
Trump Admin. Tells Schools: No Federal Funds If You’re Using DEI (Education Week) | APRIL 3, 2025
“The goal here is increased threats and intimidation to cause a chilling effect that makes school districts all over the country stop doing activities and things that are otherwise lawful under Title VI,” said Michael Pillera, the director of the educational opportunities project for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Trump restricts federal research funding, a lifeblood for colleges (AP News) | MARCH 28, 2025
“It looks like much of the playbook is intimidation, more so than actual substantiated legal findings,” said Michael Pillera, director of educational equity issues at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “I think all of this is designed as an attempt to intimidate all universities, not just the institutions under investigation.”
Civil rights groups say push to dismantle Education Department will undo hard-won gains (AP News) | MARCH 27, 2025
Trump’s order “will destroy civil rights guardrails that ensure educational opportunity for all students — and shatter educational opportunity for Black students and other students of color in particular.” – Michael Pillera, a former Education Department senior civil rights attorney
Lawyers’ Committee Condemns the Trump Administration’s Executive Order Purporting to Abolish the Department of Education (Press Release) |MARCH 21, 2025
“If the Trump Administration accomplishes its feckless aim to abolish the Department of Education, it will destroy civil rights guardrails that ensure educational opportunity for all students— and shatter educational opportunity for Black students and other students of color in particular.” – Michael Pillera, Director, Educational Opportunities Project
Slashing Department of Education Staff is a Loss for America’s Students and Civil Rights (Press Release) | MARCH 12, 2025
“In Brown v. Board of Education, a unanimous Supreme Court noted that education is ‘the very foundation of good citizenship’. Destroying the Department of Education will only serve to undermine Brown’s mandate and promise of equity and quality education for all”. – Damon Hewitt, Executive Director
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Urges Senators to Oppose Nomination of Linda McMahon for Secretary of Education (Press Release) | FEBRUARY 20, 2025
“Confirming a nominee who lacks the qualifications and commitment to uphold the department’s mission would deliver a severe blow to students, families, and educators across the country. Disgracefully, it appears that McMahon is being brought in to dismantle civil rights enforcement—or worse to weaponize it in service of Trump’s destructive agenda.” – Ernest Bihm, Program Manager, Educational Opportunities Project
Trump Admin. Warns Schools: End Race-Based Programs or Risk Losing Funds (Education Week) |FEBRUARY 18, 2025
The letter is a “vast and unjustified expansion” of the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision, said Sumayya Saleh, associate director of educational opportunities project for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
“The letter is simply wrong that school programs advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion are presumptively illegal,” she said. “While the decision that this letter relies on was a blow to affirmative action at higher education institutions, its ruling is really quite limited and still allows for institutions to use other lawful means to advance diversity and equity, whether at the college level and certainly in the K-12 level, which that case is not even about.”
Meta Sued for Discriminatory For-Profit College Marketing Targeted at Black Social Media Users (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education) | FEBRUARY 18, 2025
New Lawsuit Challenges Big Tech Firm Meta for Discrimination in Advertising Higher Education Opportunities (Press Release) | FEBRUARY 11, 2025
“Separate and unequal services should be remnants of the past, but they are still a present-day reality for Black users on Meta’s platforms,” said Damon T. Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “Digital redlining, especially in today’s higher education market, sends the unmistakable signal that Black people belong in some institutions but not others. This lawsuit aims to make it clear that no corporation — not even a Big Tech company as powerful as Meta — should be allowed to profit from the discriminatory treatment of Black students and consumers.” – Damon Hewitt
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Honors Congressional Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Fearless Fund’s CEO Arian Simone, and Arkansas Teacher Ruthie Walls During Annual Higginbotham Leadership Awards Gala (Press Release) | SEPTEMBER 18, 2024
The Lawyers’ Committee honored Colton Gilbert and Ruthie Wall, educators at the historic Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. Gilbert and Walls are plaintiffs in Walls v. Sanders, a successful challenge to the Arkansas LEARNS Act, which would have punished educators for teaching about Critical Race Theory.
What Students Need to Know About Classroom Censorship Laws in Arkansas | SEPTEMBER 12, 2024
In April 2024, a group of students and teachers from Little Rock Central High School, along with the NAACP Arkansas State Conference, filed a federal lawsuit challenging Section 16 of the LEARNS Act.
ACLU, other groups support OU in lawsuit filed by white students alleging discrimination (The Oklahoman) | JULY 30, 2024
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma are supporting the University of Oklahoma’s request for dismissal of a federal lawsuit filed by three white OU students who claim the school denied them financial aid because of systemic discrimination that favors Black students.
“We found it necessary to step in because the plaintiffs provide no support for their far-reaching allegations. Targeting financial support for hardworking Black students is part of an insidious trend to attempt to expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s decision on college admissions last year. We stand on watch to fiercely fight back these cowardly attempts to weaponize a civil rights law against the very students it was intended to protect.” – Chavis Jones, Counsel, Educational Opportunities Project
Judge throws out rightwing affirmative action lawsuit against Texas university (Guardian) | JULY 19, 2024
“Despite their efforts to extend the supreme court’s Harvard ruling and aim to further diminish diversity on campuses, their strategy backfired,” David Hinojosa, the director of the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said in a statement. “The Lawyers’ Committee, together with our partners, remain committed to defending students’ rights, promoting diversity and justice, and ensuring equal opportunities for all qualified students. We are undeterred by Blum’s attempts to compromise fairness and civil rights.”
Judge Dismisses Affirmative Action Suit Against UT Austin (Inside Higher Education) | JULY 17, 2024
Critics of the appeal said it was an attempt to expand the scope of the SFFA v. Harvard and UNC rulings beyond the text of the decisions—an effort that conservatives have taken up over the past year to influence everything from hiring practices to scholarship criteria. David Hinojosa, director of the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law lauded the dismissal as a rejection of that movement.
“Despite their efforts to extend the Supreme Court’s Harvard ruling and aim to further diminish diversity on campuses, their strategy backfired,” he wrote in a statement.
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Helps Repel SFFA’s Attempts to Expand Harvard Ruling After Courts’ Dismissal of Admissions Lawsuit against UT-Austin (Press Release) | JULY 16, 2024
A federal court dismissed SFFA v. UT-Austin, a lawsuit initiated in 2019 by Edward Blum and his anti-civil rights group Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA). The ruling marks a defeat of SFFA’s efforts to broaden the implications of the Harvard decision, which set strict guidelines for considering race in college admissions. The decision also is a victory for advocates who continue to fight for diversity and equality on campus in the wake of the ruling.
Many universities are abandoning race-conscious scholarships worth millions (Washington Post) | JULY, 9 2024
Colleges could also tailor scholarships to target students in certain Zip codes, first-generation STEM students or ethnic studies majors, said David Hinojosa, director of the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
“There are lots of options that colleges and universities can still engage in to ensure that students across races and backgrounds are welcomed and able to attend their university,” Hinojosa said.
The fight over equity in college admissions continues (Politico) | JULY 1, 2024
“We’re absolutely concerned with the retrenchment of many universities, especially Ivy League universities but also some public universities like the University of Texas in Austin, that are aimed at excluding students of color,” said David Hinojosa, director of the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a nonprofit that has defended race-conscious education policies.
“The civil rights community is looking at legacy programs very closely as part of an offensive strategy to break down these systemic barriers to admissions for historically marginalized students,” he added. “For those that have not yet dropped those very unfair legacy programs, they need to be on watch.”
Lawyers’ Committee Statement One Year Since the U.S. Supreme Court Limited the Use of Race in College Admissions (Press Release) | JUNE 29, 2024
“One year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that not only upended five decades of precedent by limiting race-conscious admissions, but also sought to upend the true meaning of the Equal Protection Clause and the promise of Brown v. Board of Education. The tragic ruling resulted from a very long campaign by bad actors to dismantle civil rights and opportunity at universities and beyond. Make no mistake. The ruling dealt a blow to racial justice, progress, and equality. The opposing forces are working to further chip away at civil rights, and even expand the ruling to other contexts.
But our pursuit of a true, thriving multiracial democracy demands that we not relent. At the Lawyers’ Committee, our resolve to fight for equal opportunity is stronger than ever. We are doubling down on our efforts to make sure every child in America has the chance to fulfill their potential and reach their dreams.” – Damon T. Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Federal Court Partially Halts Oklahoma’s Classroom Censorship Law (Press Release) | JUNE 17, 2024
A federal court granted a partial preliminary injunction that will blunt the impact of Oklahoma’s classroom censorship law, HB 1775, which sought to severely restrict teachers and students in K-12 public schools and public universities from learning and talking about race and gender.
“The ruling represents an important step forward for students and our democracy, which is strengthened when teachers and students are free to discuss the truth about American history and share diverse viewpoints about current events around race and gender. [It] is a significant first step towards invalidating this law, and the spate of similar anti-diversity and inclusion laws that seek to erase history and harm our multiracial society.” said David Hinojosa, director of the Educational Opportunities Project with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Court Upholds Teacher and Student Rights in Challenge to Arkansas Classroom Censorship Law (Press Release) | MAY 8, 2024
A federal court issued a ruling on the controversial classroom censorship provision of the Arkansas’ LEARNS Act, Section 16. The court upheld student’s right to receive information and ideas and issued a partial injunction, prohibiting Arkansas from disciplining Ms. Ruthie Walls and Mr. Colton Gilbert, teachers and plaintiffs in the case, from simply teaching about Critical Race Theory (CRT), using CRT or parts of CRT to teach other topics, or referencing parts of CRT in their teachings.
Lawyers’ Committee, NAACP Join Educators & Students in Lawsuit Against Arkansas Challenging LEARNS Act & Treatment of AP African American Studies Course (Press Release) | APRIL 15, 2024
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and civil rights attorneys Mike Laux and Austin Porter Jr. filed an amended complaint and accompanying motion for preliminary injunction against Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders and the state of Arkansas on behalf of Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP, two Little Rock teachers and two students attending the historic Central High School. The plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of Arkansas’ controversial “anti-indoctrination” law and the discriminatory treatment of the Advanced Placement (AP) African American Studies course in public schools.
North Carolina Supreme Court Rehears Historic School Funding Case as Other States Debate Inequality in Education (Press Release) | FEBRUARY 24, 2024
On February 22, 2024, the North Carolina Supreme Court will unjustifiably rehear a decades-long landmark case that will determine if all kids in the state will have adequately funded education, regardless of where they live, as guaranteed by the state’s Constitution.
Rev. Corine Mack, president of the North Carolina NAACP’s Charlotte-Mecklenburg Branch, whose members include families and schoolchildren, explained: “Today, our beautiful children are still sitting in overcrowded classrooms without certified teachers because the schools can’t afford to hire enough teachers. Every day there is a delay in releasing these funds causes a wider learning disparity in the North Carolina educational system..Now is the time to do what is morally right and educationally sound.”
Lawyers’ Committee, ACLU of Oklahoma, and Partners Respond to Governor Stitt’s Executive Order Targeting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (Press Release) | DECEMBER 20, 2023
Last week Governor Stitt issued an Executive Order prohibiting state agencies from funding or requiring diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Despite the University of Oklahoma’s statements, the order does not require that Oklahoma universities eliminate all DEI offices. Exceptions and limiting language appear throughout the order, leaving universities with ample room to continue the necessary work of DEI, if they have the will to do so.
“Where OU has misread the Executive Order, the Governor has misread the U.S. Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was passed in the aftermath of the Civil War to protect Black Americans from discrimination. So it is with painful irony that the Governor cites it in an EO that will undermine the strides Oklahoma has taken to protect people from discrimination.”
Lawyers’ Committee and American Civil Liberties Union Defend Free Speech in Schools in Case Challenging HB1775 in Oklahoma (Press Release) DECEMBER 4, 2023
“This vague and overbreadth law has a profound chilling effect on educators’ free speech rights and academic freedom. It violates students’ fundamental right to information and ideas and is constructed in a manner that is clearly racially discriminatory. Our country needs to acknowledge and reckon with its history of systemic racism — this includes being able to teach and talk about these concepts in our schools. Laws like HB 1775 work to deny us from learning the history and lived experiences of Black, Indigenous, and other people of color; women and girls; and LGBTQ+ people.” Maya Brodziak, Counsel with the Educational Opportunities Project
College Students & Alumni Engagement
Student and alumni engagement is critical to the higher education work we do at the Lawyers’ Committee, as it helps us define our priorities, inform our advocacy, and tailor resources and support more effectively. This section features tools and resources designed specifically to support students and alumni to become more empowered to advocate for racial equity on their campuses.
Connect with Us
Your insights and experiences as college students and alumni are crucial in helping us gain a deeper understanding of the current higher education landscape and develop an effective advocacy agenda. If you would like to connect with us, please email us at education@lawyerscommittee.org
Tools & Resources
Correcting the Record: College Essays Can and Should Help Schools See the Whole Student
From Brown to Harvard: How Did We Get Here and Where Do We Go Next?
Strategies for Leveraging Alumni Status to Advocate for Racial Equity
Principles for Racial Equity in Higher Education
Key Questions: Holding Colleges and Universities Accountable for Racial Equity
On-Campus Advocacy Strategies for Students and Student Organizations