EricaTurret

On May 29, 2026, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), joined by federal grantmaking agencies, issued a lengthy proposed rule[1]covering many aspects of federal financial assistance, including:

Partner Lucy Blake, Special Counsel Will Jones, and Associate Erica Turret co-authored an article for Oxford University Press Expert Essentials analyzing the growing regulatory divergence that multinational companies must navigate when managing their workplace culture and inclusion programs.

Attention government contractors and subcontractors, a new Executive Order (EO) demands your immediate attention. Titled Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors, the order, issued March 26, directs federal agencies to begin inserting a new clause prohibiting what the EO terms “racially discriminatory DEI activities” into contracts within 30 days. The EO’s text reaches more broadly than prior purported DEI preclusion efforts. Here is what you need to know.

After a year of significant upheaval for higher education institutions, additional changes are on the horizon in 2026. The most recent Unified Agenda, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and other developments mean additional changes for—as outlined below—civil rights enforcement, admissions, foreign gift reporting, accreditation, visa requirements and eligibility, grant funding, student loans, patent revenue, and student privacy. Understanding and anticipating these developments will help position

On December 9, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) published a final rule rejecting the use of disparate-impact liability, i.e., holding entities liable for discrimination due to a policy’s disproportionate effect on a certain group, even without evidence of intentional discrimination. The rule removes such liability from its regulations implementing Title VI,1the statute that prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs that receive federal financial assistanc

On November 5, Associate Erica Turret represented the National Health Law Program (NHeLP) in oral argument before the DC Circuit, challenging Indiana's restrictions on Medicaid coverage.

Published by Dow Jones Risk Journal, June 30, 2025 and reprinted with kind permission.

In a recent feature, The Lawyer profiled Jenner & Block’s Global Hearing Preparation Practice and its leading role supporting organizations involved in public hearings worldwide. The article highlights Jenner’s reputation as the go-to firm for preparing clients to appear before legislative committees, inquiries, and other public forums around the world. With a sharp rise in public scrutiny and legal risk across jurisdictions—from Washington D.C. to Westminster to Canberra—our team helps global c

Both Congress and the White House have sought to introduce new financial restrictions for institutions of higher education, building on efforts made during President Trump’s first term. These proposed restrictions include limits on foreign donations to institutions, changes to the reporting process for such donations, and increases to the endowment tax. Since President Trump’s inauguration, congressional Republicans have advanced several legislative proposals, varying in scope and structure. In

In today's increasingly diverse and interconnected business environment, companies that operate on an international scale have often looked to implement policies – including those relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) – that comply with the toughest standards. That levelling up approach has generally allowed global guidelines and initiatives to be implemented universally across business teams operating in different jurisdictions with certain caveats to ensure legal compliance in eve

Jenner & Block Associate Erica Turret will present at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) Spring 2025 CLE Workshop on March 26. As higher education discrimination laws undergo significant changes, Erica will join leaders from Rice University and Syracuse University to explore the legal status of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives a program titled “Faculty and Staff: Walking Through This New World Together.” 

On Monday, March 3, Linda McMahon was confirmed by the Senate to serve as President Trump’s Secretary of the Department of Education by a vote of 51 to 45. Since President Trump’s inauguration, even without a confirmed Secretary of Education, the administration has taken a number of significant steps to implement its policy priorities for higher education. These have included executive orders targeting DEI programs and gender-inclusive policies,[1]a Dear Colleague Letter interpreting the Supreme

Recent executive orders, federal guidance, and enforcement activity have made clear that the Trump Administration plans to interpret and apply Title IX in new and different ways. This includes an understanding of sex as an “immutable biological classification as either male or female,” defined at conception, and a targeted approach toward addressing “gender ideology.” In this client alert, part of Jenner & Block’s “First 100 Days” Series, we unpack these developments at the federal level and sug

On February 14, 2025, the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a Dear Colleague Letter about legal obligations for educational institutions under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution, which prohibit race-based discrimination.1The Letter interprets the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA) as applying broadly to a wide range of campus programs beyond admissions, revers

As anticipated, the second Trump Administration began with the release of numerous executive orders. In this client alert, part of Jenner & Block’s “First 100 Days” series, we unpack three orders that target diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs across American society—including in higher education. We summarize the key provisions for colleges and universities, discuss what likely comes next, and suggest steps to take now. As we explain below, how the federal government will implement

In this client alert, we discuss three week-one executive orders that reflect promises President Trump made on the campaign trail to attack DEI. Below, we summarize the key provisions for the private sector, discuss what likely comes next, and suggest steps to take now, in response.

While much uncertainty lies ahead as we enter 2025, the coming year is sure to see further attacks on corporate DEI efforts nationwide. With President Trump returning to the White House, the federal government is set to take aim at DEI programs. Meanwhile, emboldened by these developments at the federal level, activists and private litigants will likely ramp up their anti-DEI efforts in the courtroom, the legislatures, and the public arena. In this article, we preview what corporations with DEI

In a recent analysis provided to Law360, Co-Managing Partner-Elect Ishan Bhabha, Partners Lauren Hartz, Emily Loeb, and Gail Morse, and Associates Hilary Ledwell, Michelle Li, and Erica Turret discuss the potential impact of the 2024 US election results on higher education, particularly with the incoming Trump-Vance Administration. Several areas of higher education policy are expected to be affected, including: DEI, campus protests, Title IX, federal funding and taxes, and foreign relationships.

The 2024 election capped a year of intense political scrutiny for colleges and universities, and the election results could have far-reaching ramifications for higher education. When President-Elect Trump takes office in January and the 119thCongress is sworn in, colleges and universities may quickly become the target of executive and congressional action on several fronts.

On June 29, 2024, one year passed since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), which overturned fifty years of legal precedent in striking down the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard College and University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Although the actual legal applicability of the decision was largely confined to educational institutions and recipients of federal funds, the rationale behind the Court’s decision—and its very stringent applicatio