The AAUP currently has ten lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s assault on higher education and on immigrants. This litigation has been supported by the AAUP Foundation and pursued in collaboration with the AFT, the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Forward, and the Knight First Amendment Institute. Stay up to date on all the cases in which the AAUP is a plaintiff by checking our website at https://www.aaup.org/litigation.
Since the publication of the last issue of Academe, the AAUP has filed a new lawsuit, intervened in another, and submitted an amicus brief against the Trump administration. There are also some updates in the existing suits involving the funding cuts to the University of California and the challenge to antidiversity orders. These developments are discussed below.
On February 3, 2026, the AAUP sued the federal government to challenge a new immigration initiative known as the “Gold Card,” which encourages wealthy individuals or corporations to make large payments in exchange for expedited consideration for employment-based immigrant visas. The program treats a $1 million payment (or $2 million by a corporation) as evidence of eligibility for highly selective visa categories reserved for individuals demonstrating extraordinary ability. The lawsuit argues that the program is unlawful because it exceeds executive authority and violates federal statutes. Congress—not federal agencies—sets immigration eligibility criteria, visa caps, and priority rules. The AAUP asserts that the scheme harms our members by prolonging reliance on temporary status, increasing employment instability, and disrupting research, teaching, and career advancement for non-citizen scholars. Plaintiffs seek a court order declaring the program unlawful and halting its implementation. We are currently awaiting the government’s response.
On January 13, 2026, the AAUP, alongside AAUP-Penn, joined a coalition of Jewish students and scholars to intervene in a Trump administration lawsuit seeking to compel the University of Pennsylvania to disclose private information about its Jewish faculty members and students. On July 23, 2025, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a subpoena demanding that Penn create and disclose a list of Jewish and Jewish-affiliated campus organizations and their members, including personal contact information. The university denied the request, citing privacy concerns. The EEOC then filed suit on November 18 seeking disclosure. In response, the AAUP, AAUP-Penn, and a group of Jewish scholars and faculty members moved to intervene as defendants, and the motion was granted. The AAUP argued that Jewish AAUP members and those in Jewish studies would face harms to privacy, religious liberty, and career freedom, and that enforcement could chill speech and academic activity at institutions nationwide. On March 31, 2026, a judge ordered Penn to respond to the EEOC’s subpoena, though without revealing any employee’s affiliation with a specific organization. While the judge’s decision to enforce the subpoena is disappointing, the intervention prompted the EEOC to cease seeking any employee’s association with a particular Jewish-related organization.
On December 22, 2025, the AAUP and the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) filed an amicus brief in the Third Circuit supporting the district court’s dismissal of a Title VI lawsuit against the University of Pennsylvania. A group of students alleged that the university enabled a hostile environment for Jewish students, relying largely on claims involving protected speech critical of Israel or Zionism. The brief argues that using antidiscrimination law to suppress protected expression undermines academic freedom and risks imposing ideological orthodoxy on campuses. It draws on the AAUP and MESA’s empirical study of Title VI antisemitism claims, which found that plaintiffs and their amici relied on misleading statistics that often conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism and rest on limited factual details. The brief supports affirmation of the dismissal. The plaintiffs have requested oral argument and are awaiting the panel’s decision.
As previously reported in Academe, a federal court granted a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration’s effort to use federal funding to pressure the University of California into ideological conformity. On February 13, 2026, the court modified the injunction at the parties’ request. The revised order bars the government from withholding or threatening to withhold funds based on alleged Title VI or Title IX violations unless statutory and regulatory procedures are satisfied, including notice and a hearing. The order requires limiting the termination of funds to the noncompliant program. It also prohibits the imposition of fines or monetary penalties related to civil rights investigations under Titles VI, VII, or IX, and it enjoins the government from using funding leverage to force UC to accept terms from an earlier settlement offer, substantially similar terms, or pursuant to the “Task Force Policy.”
Also previously reported in Academe, the AAUP initially secured a preliminary injunction in its challenge to Trump’s antidiversity executive orders, though the order was stayed on appeal. On February 6, 2026, the Fourth Circuit vacated the injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. The decision did not endorse the administration’s broad attack on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; instead, it narrowed the scope of federal certification and termination requirements, finding that they demanded only compliance with existing law. The court also emphasized that if the president or his administration misinterprets federal antidiscrimination law, plaintiffs can challenge that interpretation.