By Paul Stern
In 2025, hundreds of lawsuits were filed against the Trump administration challenging policies that tested the limits of executive power, many of which directly or indirectly affect the nation’s higher education system and the scientific research enterprise, including colleges and universities’ ability to: enroll students; conduct research vital to our nation’s health, security, and economy; and manage their faculty, staff, and curriculum.
Law360 recently reviewed more than 400 such cases filed against the administration and found mixed results for plaintiffs. As of January 12, the administration had prevailed in 83 cases and lost in 150, a success rate for the administration of just over 35%, with an even lower rate in the district courts; however the administration’s record improved markedly on appeal, especially at the Supreme Court, where it has received favorable rulings in roughly 85% of cases.
More than 75% of the 400 cases reviewed by Law360 involved federal funding, immigration, federal employment, and civil rights. AAU continues to closely monitor cases with implications for higher education and research.
Federal Funding for Research
Federal funding disputes account for the largest share of litigation brought against the administration. AAU has been tracking several cases related to the termination and withholding of federally funded research grants.
The legal landscape in this area shifted significantly last year after the Supreme Court ruled in several cases (including in a case brought by the American Public Health Association challenging individual grant terminations by the National Institutes of Health) that, although challenges to agency-wide directives may proceed in federal court, challenges to individual grant terminations are contractual in nature and, thus, fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.
These rulings limit the types of relief available to those challenging the termination of federally funded grants, but their precise scope remains unsettled as related cases continue to move through the lower courts.
- AAU, alongside other higher education associations and institutions, has also challenged policies issued by the NIH, the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Defense that sought to cap indirect cost rates negotiated to reimburse universities for the research infrastructure and operational expenses necessary to support federally funded research. All four policies are currently blocked, although appeals in the DOE and DOD cases remain pending before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Immigration
Immigration has likewise been a major focus of litigation over the past year, with many cases contesting administration policies that target international students or curtail the ability of institutions of higher education to enroll international students as well as recruit and retain international talent.
- In October, AAU and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed suit challenging a presidential proclamation that imposes a $100,000 fee on certain H-1B visa petitions. The proclamation remains in effect and on appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia after a district court ruled in favor of the government. As a result, the proclamation continues to impede employers, including colleges and universities, from hiring some of the world’s most highly qualified workers. Other related cases challenging the proclamation are pending in federal courts in California and Massachusetts.
- In 2025, the administration took multiple actions limiting the ability of colleges and universities to enroll international students. In April, the Department of Homeland Security terminated thousands of students’ SEVIS records, jeopardizing their ability to complete their studies in the United States. After hundreds of lawsuits, DHS ultimately restored many records, but litigation over the issuance of the underlying policy
- Separately, Harvard University successfully obtained temporary relief against targeted measures designed to restrict enrollment of international students at the university, including a presidential travel ban that barred any international student seeking to study at Harvard from entering the United States. That litigation remains ongoing, and AAU recently joined other higher education associations in filing an amicus brief in the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals supporting Harvard and arguing that the administration’s actions threaten not only Harvard’s institutional autonomy but also that of all institutions of higher education.
Federal Employment and Dismantling of Federal Agencies
Another significant category of litigation challenges executive orders and policies aimed at dismantling or significantly reducing staffing and operations at federal departments and agencies, with mixed outcomes to date.
- For example, after a challenge to the administration’s planned reduction-in-force (RIF) and effective dismantling of the Department of Education, a district court issued an injunction ordering the temporary reinstatement of terminated employees and halting further dismantling. In July, the Supreme Court, without explanation, intervened to halt application of the court’s injunction until a decision is reached on appeal. While the case remains pending, the administration continues to reshape the Department of Education’s footprint.
- Also in July, the Supreme Court intervened to pause another temporary injunction entered in litigation arising from reduction-in-force actions at more than 20 federal departments and agencies. The Supreme Court’s intervention permitted those entities to continue operating with reduced staff levels, likely impairing their efficiency and ability to fulfill statutory missions and responsibilities.
Civil Rights
Several lawsuits have also challenged administration policies interpreting and applying federal civil rights laws to institutions of higher education, federal agencies, and other public and private actors.
- Recently, the government voluntarily dismissed its appeal of a district court decision in a case invalidating a February 14, Department of Education “Dear Colleague” letter that announced an expansive reading of the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard as it relates to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. The letter threatened to investigate and remove federal funding for institutions whose programs did not conform to the department’s interpretation of the decision.
The administration’s approach to DEI policies and programs remains unclear. Two executive orders issued by the administration requiring the elimination of DEI initiatives in federal agencies and imposing significant restrictions on public and private entities that promote DEI programs are currently being enforced while related litigation proceeds. In addition, in July 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a non-binding memo to federal funding recipients outlining the Department of Justice’s enforcement priorities concerning federal antidiscrimination laws as it relates to DEI policies and programs.
Moving Forward
Although litigation has been an essential tool for challenging these policies, the administration’s strong record on appeal indicates that litigation alone is unlikely to resolve the challenges confronting institutions of higher education.
Sustained engagement through legislative advocacy, regulatory processes, and other forms of administrative engagement will also be necessary to ensure that colleges and universities can continue their essential work of educating their students to create the highly skilled workforce our nation needs, advancing the U.S. research enterprise that makes our country stronger, and supporting U.S. economic leadership in critical fields.
Paul Stern is legal analyst for government relations and public policy at AAU.