July 1, 2025

The Academic Advisor - Education Law Insights, Issue 5, 2025

Kevin Carr, Lisa Hawrot, Sophia Hines, Erin Jones Adams, Nicholas Muto, Shane Riley

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

+ Follow Contact

Facebook

Send

Embed

[co-authors: Gabriel Papadopoulos, Addelyn Slyh]*

June 30, 2025

Welcome to our fifth issue of The Academic Advisor for 2025.

In this edition, we cover the following topics of interest for schools, institutions of higher education, and other education-focused organizations:

The increasing risks of data breaches and cybersecurity issues for educational organizations;
The impact of Ohio’s new educational bill;
A look at House v. NCAA and the impact considering Title IX elements;
An update on the U.S. Supreme Court decision affecting the ADA;
The question of DEI curriculum cuts and the First Amendment; and
The potential shift of student loans from government to private lenders.

During the summer months, our firm is pleased to host a talented group of law students, who get the opportunity to research and write, shadow our attorneys, and learn about the practice of law in a firm setting. As young professionals still deeply involved in higher education, our Summer Associates will be contributing to our summer publications and sharing their perspectives as both students and future legal practitioners. Please join us in welcoming Gabriel Papadopoulos and Addelyn Slyh to The Academic Advisor team for this special summer edition.

As always, thank you for reading and let us know if you have any questions.

Erin Jones Adams, Member, Co-Chair of the Education Practice Group, and Co-Editor of The Academic Advisor

and

Kevin L. Carr, Member, Co-Chair of the Education Practice Group, Co-Chair of the Labor and Employment Practice Group, and Co-Editor of The Academic Advisor

Data Breach Hits Pennsylvania’s Largest Workers and Teachers’ Union PSEA, Impacting Over 500,000 People

“The Harrisburg-based organization launched an investigation that concluded on February 18, 2025, that the cyber incident enabled a threat actor to access certain files containing personal information.”

Why this is important: A data breach at the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA), Pennsylvania’s largest workers and teachers’ union, exposed the personal, financial, and health data of over 517,000 individuals. The breach occurred in July 2024 and was confirmed after an investigation concluded in February 2025. Leaked data included social security numbers, driver's licenses and passport numbers, account and payment card information, and health insurance and medical records.

The Rhysida ransomware gang claimed responsibility, demanding a $1.1 million ransom (in the form of 20 Bitcoin) and briefly listed the stolen data online, indicating the ransom may have been paid.

In response, PSEA first notified the authorities and victims and has offered 12 months of credit and cyber-attack monitoring. They have also urged individuals to monitor financial activity and consider credit freezes.

Rhysida, a hacker group active since May 2023, has been linked to multiple high-profile breaches and is believed to have ties to Vice Society. U.S. agencies, including the FBI and CISA, have issued warnings about its growing threat, especially to sectors like education and healthcare.

Ransomware hacks are an ever-growing problem and no organization, small or large, public or private, is truly safe. Savvy business leaders will be prepared with a plan and able to jump into action as soon as the bad actors strike. Reach out to Spilman to discuss strengthening your cybersecurity plan and response protocols. --- Shane P. Riley

Ohio’s New Education Law Sparks Debate on Free Speech, DEI and Faculty Rights

“Supporters say the law promotes intellectual diversity, while critics call it a threat to academic freedom.”

Why this is important: Senate Bill 1, the Ohio Higher Education Enhancement Act (HEEA), was signed into law on March 28, 2025 and became effective as of June 26, 2025, impacting Ohio’s public universities and colleges. If the public universities and colleges do not abide by the new law, they risk losing state funding.

This new law received overwhelming opposition from college students and faculty members, some of whom said they would leave Ohio if it passed. Over 1,500 people submitted opponent testimony against the Bill.

Proponents and opponents of the HEEA could not be more different in how they view its potential impact. Under the new law, public universities and colleges cannot take positions on "controversial beliefs or policies," which are defined as anything subject to political controversy - including climate change, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, immigration policy, marriage, and abortion. Supporters say it ensures students are not penalized for their political views and opens the door for a more balanced dialogue. Critics warn it may lead to politically motivated scrutiny of course content, particularly since the law requires that faculty post syllabi online starting with the 2026-2027 school year. While there appears to be some agreement that a student should not have to support a political viewpoint to pass a class, posting syllabi could pressure faculty to alter their teaching.

The new law removes DEI-based hiring practices. It also removes training, offices, and scholarships based on DEI. Proponents believe this will create more equal opportunity among students. Opponents believe the changes will demolish essential support systems for underrepresented students. Some schools around the state are already starting to close their women's centers, LGBTQ centers, and multicultural centers.

Another provision in the HEEA includes a ban on faculty strikes and a retrenchment provision blocking unions from negotiating tenure. Tenured professors could be fired over poor reviews. Students and peers could weigh in on professors' performance, and poor evaluations could result in discipline or termination. Since some professors are still protected by existing union contracts, the true impact of this provision may not be seen for a few years.

Although Ohioans have the option to put laws passed by legislators to a vote, they must collect 248,092 signatures, or six percent of the last Governor's race total, to get the issue on the ballot. This is a massive undertaking, which makes it unlikely to occur. Opponents can file legal challenges to all or portions of the Bill. However, legal challenges take time, and while those challenges are pending, unless or until a court enters an order otherwise, public universities and colleges will need to start immediate work on ensuring their policies are compliant with the new law. --- Lisa M. Hawrot

Colleges Prep for Athlete Title IX Lawsuits of the Revenue-Share Era

“These preparations, months in the making, include budgeting for costly and prolonged litigation—and potential settlements with classes of athletes—as well as commissioning audits to identify other areas of Title IX vulnerability.”

Why this is important: On Friday, June 6, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilken approved the long-awaited House v. NCAA settlement allowing schools to spend roughly $20.5 million annually to pay their athletes directly. The 10-year settlement deal is expected to expand each year, with estimates that it will surpass $30 million by year 10. While NCAA member schools across the country are still deciding how they will come to terms with this revenue-sharing sports era, many are also setting aside funds in anticipation of a new wave of Title IX lawsuits and settlements. Of the schools known to have allocated money for this potential litigation so far, the amounts range anywhere from a few million to 20 million dollars.

Under Title IX, schools have to provide equal treatment and opportunity in the services they provide, including sports programs. Schools could, for example, allocate funds based on their enrollment of male and female student-athletes to simplify things from an administrative standpoint. While distributing funds evenly may sound simple enough in theory, many schools competing at the highest level may be tempted to allocate these payments toward recruiting athletes in high-revenue sports to maximize their profits. While such a strategy would directly conflict with the goals of Title IX, the revenue-sharing era is uncharted territory, and very little guidance exists for courts tasked with deciding these issues. The first cases heard on this topic may lay the groundwork for a slew of incoming lawsuits.

While revenue sharing is a major consideration for Title IX, other issues such as whether name, image, and likeness (NIL) opportunities more generally are subject to Title IX – an idea promulgated by the U.S. Department of Education under the Biden administration and since rescinded under President Trump – could also be a new area of gender-equity litigation. Potential defendants will have to weigh factors such as liability insurance, which typically protects against Title IX claims, reputation, and the money at stake when deciding how to handle these claims. The willingness of schools to fight these lawsuits rather than settle will be a key factor in developing this new landscape in the law of college sports, should student-athletes decide to press their claims for equality. --- Gabriel P. Papadopoulos, Summer Associate

Supreme Court Decision Lets Students Sue Schools More Easily for Disability Bias

"The unanimous decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools makes it easier for students and families to seek monetary damages for alleged discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990."

Why this is important: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are enduring pillars of bipartisan legislation that require schools, government offices, and private businesses to provide accommodations to people with disabilities so that they too can enjoy the benefits and offerings of public and private entities. In the case of A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, the Osseo Area School District was sued by a student (Tharpe) with a severe form of epilepsy because the school refused to extend class offerings into the evening when the student was better able to attend in person. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit determined that the Osseo Area Schools failed to provide Tharpe with a free, appropriate public education in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). However, the court dismissed discrimination claims brought under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, finding that because the alleged wrongdoing was related to educational services, it must meet a higher standard. The court stated that “[w]hen the alleged ADA and Section 504 violations are based on educational services for disabled children, a school district’s simple failure to provide a reasonable accommodation is not enough to trigger liability[.]” Instead, “a plaintiff must prove that school officials acted with ‘either bad faith or gross misjudgment.'” Attorneys for the Osseo Area Schools had also widened their argument, saying that the higher burden “is the correct standard across the board, both in schools and out.” They argued that the language of Section 504 and Title II of the ADA permits liability only for intentional discrimination and “do[es] not impose liability for nondiscriminatory, good-faith denials of requested accommodations.”

On June 12, 2025, the Supreme Court overturned the lower-court ruling and unanimously held that “[s]chool children bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of ‘bad faith or gross misjudgment[,]’ but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.” This is a major win for students, but really all people with disabilities. A contrary ruling would have resulted in the higher standard needing to be shown, thereby limiting Title II and Section 504 protections inside and outside of the education space. Based on this ruling, the Osseo Area Schools and all others must ensure that they are working closely with students and their families to establish individualized educational programs and reasonable accommodations that meet all of the educational needs of children with qualifying disabilities. --- Sophia L. Hines

UNI Faculty Union Accuses Regents of Violating Their Own Free Speech Policy

“The proposed DEI and CRT requirement explicitly violates the First Amendment.”

Why this is important: Freedom of speech is one of the most recognized and therefore utilized rights that the Constitution provides. The right to speak, and the right to expression, or in other words, the right to be free from restraint when it comes to speech and expression, is what the First Amendment affords. The First Amendment also protects against coerced speech, or being forced to speak or express yourself in a way that you oppose. The crux of the First Amendment is that everyone has a chance to speak or express their viewpoints, even if they may not be popular.

Recently, the University of Northern Iowa (UNI) United Faculty Union accused the UNI Board of Regents of violating its own "Freedom of Expression" policy. This accusation was due to a proposed policy change that would bar Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and Critical Race Theory (CRT) course requirements across the school. The United Faculty Union claimed that the proposed requirement explicitly violated the First Amendment as it endorsed viewpoint discrimination and allowed the Board to decide what kinds of speech are appropriate.

By not requiring students to take courses that convey DEI or CRT to satisfy their major or minor graduation requirements, the regulation is conveying that those viewpoints are disfavored, which goes to the heart of the First Amendment. The argument may be made that this regulation is simply "not requiring" students to take certain courses and thus does not implicate the First Amendment. But by simply "not requiring" students to take DEI or CRT courses, what the University may be doing is showing favoritism for a viewpoint, and restricting students from learning about DEI or CRT, as well as restricting professors from teaching about those subjects. On the flip side, the Board may argue that the proposed regulation actually eliminates a coerced speech or coerced expression issue. Is requiring students to take a DEI or CRT course in order to graduate a violation of the First Amendment in and of itself?

Perhaps the Board was attempting to right a wrong that was already present, or maybe they were creating a new wrong. At the end of the day, regardless of changes in the administration, political beliefs, or any other opinions about DEI and CRT, there is a right to free speech in the Constitution. Speech is art; it is expression; it is connection; it is talking, learning, hearing, experiencing, and feeling; and most of all, speech is powerful. The power of speech means the power to influence and change.

Opponents believe universities should be encouraging their students and professors to influence, make waves, and create change, not stifling it by taking away their power of speech. Universities are full of the next generation of leaders, senators, teachers, lawyers, doctors, parents, scientists, presidents, and so much more. At the end of the day, these individuals will exercise their power of speech and create change, however that might look. --- Addelyn C. Slyh, Summer Associate

Republicans Want to Curb Federal Student Loans — and Private Lenders are Ready to Step In

“The House version of the tax and spending bill would put new limits on federal student-loan borrowing. The Senate is debating its own version this month.”

Why this is important: Conservative lawmakers in Washington, D.C. believe it is time for the government to get out of the student loan business. Currently, the federal government accounts for around 92 percent of the student loan market. The Trump administration mega bill proposes setting limits on loans for graduate students and parents. Presently, both of those groups can borrow up to the cost of attendance. For undergraduate students, the bill proposes loan caps and would also restrict how much a school would receive. The restriction would ban schools from receiving anything above the median cost of attendance for a given program. Even though one purpose of the bill would be to force schools to act and reduce costs, the bill does not affect how much schools can charge. In other words, schools could charge $10,000 over the median cost of attendance, but students would have to borrow those funds from another lender outside the federal government. This is where private lenders come into play. If the federal government were successful in reducing the student loans they issue, there would be a large gap for private lenders to fill.

If the new framework passes, students facing large gaps between their loans and the cost of attendance will be forced to turn to private student loans. The CEO of SoFi, Anthony Noto, said what many in the private lending sector are thinking: that they will “absolutely capture that opportunity." Even though private lenders can and are willing to step in and fill students’ needs, it is not without risks. First, there are fewer protections when students take out private loans and fewer opportunities for repayment than the federal government provides. Second, those needing private loans the most will likely face the least advantageous terms, in turn driving up the cost of college for low-income and low-wealth families. If the bill were to become law, the most attractive group to private lenders would be graduate students.

The proposals that passed the House would limit federal loans to a total of $100,000 for graduate students and $150,000 for professional students. However, neither of those numbers would be enough to cover the cost of completing a number of programs in the United States. Graduate students are generally considered good credit risks and also attractive to lenders due to the amount they borrow. The U.S. Department of Education predicted that the government would soon disperse more money to graduate students than to undergraduates, despite graduate students only comprising approximately 20 percent of the borrowers. Under the current model, even though many graduate students leave their programs with six-figure debt and beyond, it is still costly for the government. This is partly because many graduate students sign up for income-driven repayment plans after graduating, in which they pay only a certain percentage of their income, with the debt then canceled after a certain number of years.

Supporters of these student borrowing changes say that it will incentivize schools to keep costs down and force students and their families to make careful borrowing decisions. By allowing private lenders back into the mix, bad risks theoretically will not be financed. Opponents of the reform say that the stricter standards will make college more costly and harder to access for students whose families have poor or no credit. Experts also warn that predatory lenders will emerge and do anything to put themselves front and center.

The Senate is working on their own version of the mega bill, so it is uncertain what parts of the proposals will survive and become law. The proposals that passed through the House would come with an estimated $350 billion in savings, which is attractive for lawmakers who want to cut spending. Since the bill has yet to move through the Senate, it is hard to gauge the impact of the market at this very moment. Many of the proposals could be modified significantly or taken out altogether. --- Nicholas A. Muto

*Summer Associate

Send Print Report

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. Attorney Advertising.