Gibson Dunn

From the Derivatives Practice Group: This week, the CFTC issued a readout following a meeting of U.S. and U.K. authorities regarding central counterparty resolution.

New Developments

CFTC Issues Joint Readout of Principals’ Meeting of UK and U.S. Authorities Regarding Central Counterparty Resolution. On September 11, senior officials from the CFTC, SEC, FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, and Bank of England convened for a tabletop exercise on September 3, 2026, to discuss certain issues relating to the hypothetical resolution of central counterparties (CCPs). This meeting was one of a regular series of senior-level meetings held since 2017 to share views on CCP resolution and review the progress of an ongoing program of joint work among the agencies. [NEW]

CFTC Chairman Selig and Kansas State University Announce Agenda for October 22-23 AgCon Conference in Overland Park. On September 10, CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig and the Risk Management Center at Kansas State University released the agenda for the Agricultural Commodity Futures Conference (AgCon) on October 22-23, 2026, in Overland Park, Kansas. Attendees will discuss topics related to market structure, changes in emerging markets, contract convergence, financing, data, access to clearing, artificial intelligence, and the state of the farm economy. The full agenda is available here. [NEW]

CFTC Issues Final Rule to Modify Clearing Requirement for Canadian Dollar- and Mexican Peso-Denominated Interest Rate Swaps. On September 2, the CFTC issued a final rule to modify its interest rate swap clearing requirement. The final rule updates the swaps required to be submitted for clearing to a derivatives clearing organization or an exempt DCO under part 50 of the CFTC’s regulations.

CFTC Staff Issues No-Action Position on Large Trader Reporting for Direct Participants. On September 2, the CFTC’s Division of Market Oversight announced it has issued a no-action letter to Electron Exchange DCM LLC, a designated contract market, which would allow Electron Exchange to submit large trader reporting on behalf of direct participants as if Electron Exchange’s contracts were exclusively self-cleared contracts.

CFTC Further Extends Compliance Date for Amendments to Form PF. On August 31, the CFTC published a Joint Final Rule with the Securities and Exchange Commission further extending the compliance date for the amendments to Form PF from October 1, 2026, to July 1, 2027. Extending the compliance date for the Form PF Amendments allows Form PF filers to avoid certain potentially significant costs associated with implementing the Form PF Amendments that the Commissions have subsequently proposed to amend and/or eliminate in a new rule proposal issued on April 20, 2026.

New Developments Outside the U.S.

ESMA Publishes Paper Concluding Ongoing Geopolitical and Economic Vulnerabilities Masked by Strong Investor Optimism. On September 10, ESMA published its second risk monitoring report of 2026, which set out the main risks and vulnerabilities in EU financial markets. According to ESMA, while markets have remained resilient, stretched technology valuations and heightened geopolitical tensions are testing this resilience in a climate of persistent inflation and weaker economic growth. [NEW]

ESMA Consults on Disclosure Requirements and Updates Guidelines and Q&As under the Prospectus Regulation. On September 9, ESMA published a package of materials under the Prospectus Regulation to reflect changes introduced by the Listing Act. The measures aim to promote supervisory convergence and contribute to ESMA’s simplification and burden-reduction efforts. The full set of materials are available here. [NEW]

ESMA signs Memorandum of Understanding with the Securities and Exchange Board of India. On September 4, ESMA signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to facilitate cooperation and exchange of information in relation to the recognition of central counterparties established in India and supervised by SEBI.

ESMA to Host Data Day 2026. On September 4, ESMA announced that it was host Data Day 2026, which will take place on November 24, 2026 in Paris. According to ESMA, the event will bring together over 200 industry participants, regulators and other stakeholders to discuss key developments in supervisory reporting and regulatory disclosures, as well as the role of data in supporting more effective supervision and further integration in capital markets across the European Union. The full agenda is available here.

ESMA Consults on Reporting Framework for Clearing Activity at Recognized Third-Country CCPs. On August 18, ESMA launched a consultation on a proposed annual reporting framework for clearing activity at recognized third-country central counterparties (CCPs) aimed at improving supervisory visibility of EU firms’ exposures to such CCPs. The consultation paper sets out ESMA’s proposed Regulatory Technical Standards and Implementing Technical Standards under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation.

ESMA Confirms Go-live for Weekly Commodity Derivatives Position Reporting. On August 14, ESMA announces that the new weekly commodity derivatives position reporting framework will go live on September 3, 2026. From this date, market participants will be required to submit weekly position reports in accordance with the updated requirements, technical specifications and validation rules introduced by XML schema version v2.0.

New Industry-Led Developments

Global Standard-setting Bodies Publish Toolkit for Cyber Resilience at Financial Market Infrastructures (FMIs). On September 8, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS)’ Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and IOSCO published the Cyber Resilience Toolkit: Practical Considerations for FMIs toolkit and FMIs’ Reliance on Third-Party Service Providers: Challenges and Risks discussion paper. According to IOSCO, the toolkit provides practical considerations to support FMIs in strengthening their cyber resilience frameworks. Meanwhile, the discussion paper identifies and examines several key challenges related to the provision of third-party services to FMIs. [NEW]

ISDA and FIA Respond to Bank of England on CCP Resolution. On September 7, ISDA and the Futures Industry Association (FIA) responded to a Bank of England (BOE) discussion paper on central counterparty (CCP) resolution. The associations support greater clarity on valuation capabilities prior to a crisis scenario and the boundary between recovery and resolution, while stressing that default fund contributions are designed to mutualize default risk and should not become a mechanism for absorbing operational or other non-default losses. The associations caution against any change to the creditor hierarchy that would result in weakening the no-creditor-worse-off safeguard. [NEW]

ISDA Publishes Paper on Expanding Legal Agreement Coverage in the CDM. On September 4, ISDA published a paper that examines the recent extension of the Common Domain Model (CDM)1 to represent two of the most significant, and previously undeveloped, areas of its legal agreement model: umbrella agreements and contract amendments. The paper sets out why this structured, machine-readable representation matters, how each area is now modelled and the case for firms, vendors and infrastructure providers to adopt these standards. [NEW]

ISDA Publishes Omnibus Canadian Representation Letter. On September 2, ISDA published the Omnibus Canadian Representation Letter, which combines previously published representation letters drafted to assist firms in compliance with Canadian trade reporting, business conduct, regulatory margin and clearing classification rules. The Omnibus Canadian Letter is designed to be modular and allow additional modules as necessary to assist with compliance of Canadian regulations.

ISDA Publishes Paper on Accounting for Carbon Credits. On August 2, ISDA published a paper that updates and extends the analysis set out in ISDA’s October 2023 paper on accounting for carbon credits. While preserving the original focus on the accounting treatment of voluntary carbon credits and compliance carbon credits, it expands the analysis to address emerging issues and reflect important developments in accounting standard setting.

ISDA, FIA Respond to SEC on FICC Proposal to Implement a Dedicated Guaranty Fund. On September 1, ISDA and FIA submitted a joint response to the SEC, supporting the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation’s (FICC) proposal to establish a dedicated guaranty fund at its government securities division. The joint response also recommends that non-default losses should remain the responsibility of the CCP rather than being mutualized among members and calls for the retention of the current 10 business day event period, together with a cooling-off mechanism to better contain members’ exposure during periods of market stress.

Korea – FSS published its Guidelines on Margin Requirements for Non-Centrally Cleared OTC Derivatives Transactions. On September 1, the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) of Korea published its Guidelines on Margin Requirements for Non-Centrally Cleared OTC Derivatives Transactions. The guidelines extend the temporary exemption for equity options from the margin requirements until August 31, 2027.

ISDA and FIA Respond to CFTC and SEC on Cross-margining. On August 31, ISDA and FIA submitted a letter to the CFTC and the SEC on the agencies’ joint request for comment on the implementation of portfolio margining and cross-margining of securities and derivatives, which was published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2026.

The following Gibson Dunn attorneys assisted in preparing this update: Jeffrey Steiner, Adam Lapidus, Hayden McGovern, Karin Thrasher, and Alice Wang.

Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, any member of the firm’s Derivatives practice group, or the following practice leaders and authors:

Jeffrey L. Steiner, Washington, D.C. (202.887.3632, jsteiner@gibsondunn.com)

Michael D. Bopp, Washington, D.C. (202.955.8256, mbopp@gibsondunn.com)

Michelle M. Kirschner, London (+44 (0)20 7071.4212, mkirschner@gibsondunn.com)

Darius Mehraban, New York (212.351.2428, dmehraban@gibsondunn.com)

Jason J. Cabral, New York (212.351.6267, jcabral@gibsondunn.com)

Adam Lapidus, New York (212.351.3869, alapidus@gibsondunn.com )

Stephanie L. Brooker, Washington, D.C. (202.887.3502, sbrooker@gibsondunn.com)

William R. Hallatt, Hong Kong (+852 2214 3836, whallatt@gibsondunn.com )

David P. Burns, Washington, D.C. (202.887.3786, dburns@gibsondunn.com)

Marc Aaron Takagaki, New York (212.351.4028, mtakagaki@gibsondunn.com)

Hayden K. McGovern, Dallas (202.887.3569, hmcgovern@gibsondunn.com)

Karin Thrasher, Washington, D.C. (202.887.3712, kthrasher@gibsondunn.com)

Alice Yiqian Wang, Washington, D.C. (202.777.9587, awang@gibsondunn.com)

Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Gibson Dunn’s Workplace DEI Task Force aims to help our clients navigate the evolving legal and policy landscape following recent Executive Branch actions and the Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA v. Harvard. Prior issues of our DEI Task Force Update can be found in our DEI Resource Center.

Key Developments

On September 8, the accreditation council of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) voted 10-6 to repeal Standard 206, a longstanding requirement that law schools “demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion.” The requirement has been under scrutiny after President Trump issued Executive Order 14279 (“Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education”), which called for the termination of “unlawful discrimination by American law schools” “under the guise of accreditation standards” and ordered the Secretary of Education to “assess whether to suspend or terminate the Council’s status as an accrediting agency under Federal law.” Voting was anonymous, although some of the 10 members of the ABA’s accreditation council who voted for repeal stated that their intention was to preserve the ABA’s accreditation authority.

On September 3, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service released proposed regulations that would deny tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) to any private school that considers race, color, or national or ethnic origin in admissions, scholarships or loans, athletics, or any other “school-administered or school-supported program.” The proposal specifies that prohibited discrimination includes race- and national origin-based discrimination “for any purpose,” regardless of the intent behind the practice. In particular, the Treasury proposes to delete the provisions of Rev. Proc. 75-50 that have, since 1975, assured schools that policies favoring racial minority groups in admissions, programs, and financial assistance do not constitute discrimination when designed to promote a school’s nondiscriminatory policy. The Treasury estimates that the rule “may affect the 18,000 private elementary, secondary, and post-secondary schools in the United States that currently qualify for tax exempt status and the 750,000 students attending these schools who may qualify for scholarships allocated on the basis of racial, ethnic, or national identity.” The proposed regulation specifies that schools may still “take actions or adopt policies intended to eliminate prejudice and discrimination” by race-neutral means, and the preamble identifies geography, family income, first-generation status, hardship, military family status, and academic achievement as permissible criteria—suggesting that correlation with race alone does not trigger loss of exemption. Comments are due November 3, 2026. The rule would apply to taxable years beginning after May 31, 2027. For more information, please see our September 8 client alert here.

On August 25, Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Deloitte reached a settlement in relation to a False Claims Act (“FCA”) investigation into the company. Under the settlement, Deloitte agreed to pay $21.5 million in exchange for resolution of allegations that the company “fail[ed] to comply with anti-discrimination requirements in its federal contracts” due to practices the United States contends “discriminat[ed] against employees and applicants on the basis of their race or sex.” Specifically, the government alleged that “Deloitte took race or sex into account when making hiring, promotion, and staffing decisions to achieve progress toward non-public race and sex-based workforce composition goals,” including by “tracking progress toward [] demographic goals,” “evaluat[ing] [Deloitte’s senior management], in part, based on their contributions to helping Deloitte achieve its workforce composition goals,” “sett[ing] goals pertaining to the demographics of employees staffed to federal contracts,” and “offer[ing] certain training, mentoring, leadership, development programs, educational opportunities or resources, and/or similar opportunities only to certain employees, with eligibility limited on the basis of race or sex.” Deloitte denies the allegations made against it. This marks the second DOJ DEI-related FCA settlement, following IBM’s $17 million settlement in April 2026.

On August 21, the Department of Labor implemented a number of revisions to the regulations implementing Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in light of President Trump’s Executive Order (“EO”) 14173 (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”). Specifically, the DOL rescinded certain regulations applicable to federal contractors and subcontractors regarding affirmative action for individuals with disabilities under Section 503, including the section that required federal contractors to allow applicants to “self-identify” as disabled. It also rescinded the requirement that contractors collect and document various metrics (including hiring data) about applicants who self-identify as disabled. Finally, the Department also rescinded previous regulations which required contactors to conduct utilization analyses with the goal of achieving “7 percent of employment of qualified individuals with disabilities for each job group in the contractor’s workforce.” The rule goes into effect on September 21, 2026.

On August 17, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division (“DOJ”) announced it is opening a compliance review into the College of William and Mary to determine whether its scholarships and student benefits include racial criteria that violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In its announcement, the DOJ cited a number of scholarships, including some advertised for “future education leaders of color” and for law school applicants who attended Historically Black Colleges and Universities as undergraduates. In a press release, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said that “[w]e will find out if scholarships or other student benefits at William & Mary favor applicants of certain races. The Department will not turn a blind eye to race-based preferences, however they are packaged or portrayed by universities.”

On August 12, the Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) issued a memorandum opinion for the General Counsel of the National Science Foundation (“NSF”), which concludes that three NSF programs—the Improving Undergraduate STEM Education: Hispanic-Serving Institutions program (“IUSE: HSI”), the Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate program, and the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation program—may no longer be administered because of their race- and sex-based criteria, which the OLC says are unconstitutional. The OLC specifically opined that the programs—which account for about $104 million of the $938 million that Congress recently allocated to the NSF for STEM education—fail both prongs of strict scrutiny. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in SFFA v. Harvard, the OLC memorandum explains that, in its view, the only relevant “compelling interest” that would justify “race-based government action” with respect to the programs is “remediating specific, identified instances of past discrimination that violated the Constitution or statute.” According to OLC, the programs’ authorizing statutes lack such a compelling interest because they do not include “findings about specific, identified instances of past discrimination” and only provide “general assertion[s] of past discrimination” or generalized “statistical disparities.” The OLC opinion also finds that certain programs failed to engage in a “narrow tailoring” of their race- or sex-based considerations and, in the case of the IUSE: HSI program, “employ[ed] a per se impermissible racial quota.” In addition, the OLC memorandum identifies two other programs as having unconstitutional aspects, but ultimately finds that the programs may continue if they are changed to exclude race- or sex-based considerations. Those programs are (1) Advanced Technological Education (“ATE”), which directed the NSF to prioritize applications that included outreach plans and goals for recruiting and enrolling women and other underrepresented populations in STEM, and (2) the ADVANCE Program, which was authorized in 1980 to increase women’s participation in scientific and technical fields.

On August 7, Haverford College and Jews at Haverford, an advocacy group consisting of students, faculty, alumni, and parents, reached a settlement to resolve their litigation stemming from claims that Haverford’s handling of antisemitism allegations violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The details of the settlement were not made public in court documents. According to a statement from Haverford President Wendy Raymond, however, Haverford will undertake several actions to combat antisemitism on campus including: (1) enacting a revised Honor Code that removes language that could be perceived as distinguishing between students on the basis of identity-group “status”; (2) updating Haverford’s masking policy to require those who choose to wear a mask to confirm their identity upon request; (3) including information regarding Haverford’s nondiscrimination policy in Admissions materials; (4) clarifying that Haverford’s Civil Rights Director has exclusive jurisdiction over the school’s adjudication of and response to claims alleging antisemitic conduct; (5) affirming that campus events sponsored by or on behalf of those identified as Jewish and/or Israeli and advertisements for the same are entitled to effective security; and (6) clarifying that criticism of Zionism when used as a proxy for discriminatory behavior toward an individual or group based on their membership in a protected class violates Haverford policy. The case is Jews at Haverford et al. v. The Corp. of Haverford College, No. 2:24-cv-02044 (E.D. Pa.).

Media Coverage and Commentary

Below is a selection of recent media coverage and commentary on these issues:

The Associated Press, “Civil rights agency moves to drop subpoena action against Nike in DEI-related investigation” (August 12, 2026): The Associated Press’s Alexandra Olson reports that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has dropped its subpoena enforcement action against Nike, telling a Missouri federal court that Nike has now provided information and documents responsive to its subpoena, leaving “no remaining controversy.” The investigation stemmed from a complaint that EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas filed in May 2024, alleging that the company was discriminating against white employees in light of Nike’s own public disclosures regarding mentorship and diversity programs, data showing more minorities in leadership ranks, and a stated goal of 35% racial and ethnic minority representation in its corporate workforce by 2025. Olson reports that the subpoena sought years of employment data, including layoff-selection criteria, information regarding how Nike tracks and uses worker race and ethnicity data, and information on allegedly race-restricted development programs.
Law360 Employment Authority, “EEOC Says Univ. Fired Black Manager Over DEI Complaint” (August 12, 2026): Law360’s Anne Cullen reports that the EEOC sued Washington University in St. Louis, alleging that the university retaliated against a Black senior program manager at the medical school after she filed a discrimination charge. According to Cullen, the underlying charge concerned a mandatory DEI training that required the complainant and other participants to be assigned to separate virtual breakout rooms based on their race. The EEOC alleges that the complainant’s duties were reassigned after she filed her charge, and that her position was later eliminated. Cullen notes that this suit follows similar EEOC enforcement actions that seek to curtail “allegedly unlawful DEI programs,” including suits recently filed against Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast and the New York Times.
Law360, “Missouri Seeks To Block Minority Contracting Program” (August 12, 2026): Law360’s Madeline Lyskawa reports that the state of Missouri is seeking a preliminary injunction to block Kansas City’s minority and women business enterprise (“MWBE”) program. Lyskawa reports that the MWBE program began in 1996 and sets annual citywide goals for contracting with minority- and women-owned businesses. According to Lyskawa, the state argues that the program is unconstitutional for treating contractors differently based on race, and that its racial quotas and preferences cannot be justified without evidence of prior government discrimination.
Bloomberg Law, “Education Department Wins Second Chance to Explain DEI Survey” (August 12, 2026): Bloomberg Law’s Brian Dowling reports that a federal judge in the District of Massachusetts has declined to vacate the Education Department’s new admissions data survey, which remains paused. The plaintiffs, a group of state attorneys general and educational institutions, claim that the government’s survey exceeds the Education Department’s statutory authority, that it violates the Paperwork Reduction Act and the E-Government Act, and that it was proposed and adopted arbitrarily and capriciously. Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV declined to vacate the survey due to concerns about judicial overreach, forum-shopping, and separation of powers. According to Dowling, the Department’s survey seeks seven years of applicant-level data concerning race, income, parental education, test scores, and GPA from colleges and universities, in an effort to determine their compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in SFFA v. Harvard, which struck down race-based affirmative action in college and university admissions. Following the judge’s order, Dowling reports that the Education Department now has until September 11, 2026, to justify the survey.
The Associated Press, “Researchers, advocates rail against government’s efforts to end workforce data collection” (August 11, 2026): The Associated Press’s Claire Savage and Alexandra Olson report that more than 20 speakers testified at an EEOC public hearing regarding the agency’s proposal to eliminate its annual collection of workplace demographic data. The EEOC voted 2-1 last month to stop collecting the data, arguing that the requirement may encourage discriminatory practices. Savage and Olson report that most of the testifying speakers opposed the change, with civil rights groups and researchers calling the data crucial for identifying systemic discrimination and tracking progress for women and racial minorities in the workplace.
Bloomberg, “Almost All Top US Companies Had Board Diversity Rules. Now Most Are Gone” (August 11, 2026): Jeff Green and Daniela Sirtori of Bloomberg News report that the use of diversity criteria for selecting corporate board members has gone from near-universal to uncommon among large US companies in the past three years. According to Green and Sirtori’s reporting, a recent analysis found that 61 of the S&P 100 companies have eliminated explicit diversity criteria for board members since 2023. Green and Daniela Sirtori report that these policy changes have accelerated over the past two years in response to the Trump administration’s elimination of DEI programs across the federal government, as well as its attempts to curb such programs in higher education and the private sector. They further report that the percentage of companies requiring diverse slates for board member selection has decreased from 58 to 12 percent in the past year.
Bloomberg Law, “Anti-DEI Group Files Bias Charge With EEOC Against Big Law Firms” (July 30, 2026): Bloomberg Law’s Tobi Raji reports that the conservative advocacy group Americans for Equal Opportunity (“AEO”) filed a second EEOC discrimination charge against Sponsors for Educational Opportunity (“SEO”), a nonprofit that places incoming law students in summer internships, and against 14 law firms participating in SEO’s Law Fellowship program. As Raji reports, the charge alleges that SEO selected fellows on the basis of protected characteristics, including race, national origin, and religion, in violation of Title VII. According to Raji, AEO filed the charge on behalf of its members who applied unsuccessfully to the fellowship. AEO alleges that SEO has adopted “seemingly neutral language” while still giving preference to applicants based on legally protected characteristics. At the time of Raji’s reporting, neither SEO nor the 14 law firms had commented on the charge.

Case Updates

Below is a list of updates in new and pending cases:

1. Employment discrimination and related claims

Diemert v. City of Seattle, et al., No. 2:22-cv-01640 (W.D. Wash. 2022), on appeal at No. 25-01188 (9th Cir. 2025): On November 16, 2022, the plaintiff, a white male, sued his former employer, the City of Seattle, alleging that the City’s diversity initiatives, which allegedly included mandatory diversity trainings involving critical race theory and encouraging participation in “race-based affinity groups, caucuses, and employee resource groups,” amounted to racial discrimination in violation of Title VII and the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff also alleged that he had been subjected to a hostile work environment. On February 10, 2025, the court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, holding that a reasonable juror could not find the City’s diversity initiatives created a hostile work environment or that the plaintiff experienced discrimination or retaliation. On February 24, 2025, the plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on April 23, 2026.
- Latest update: On July 31, 2026, the Ninth Circuit ordered both parties to file supplemental briefs addressing (1) whether the plaintiff-appellant has Article III standing to pursue his equal protection claim, and (2) whether there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether the City classified employees based on race. In his supplemental brief, the plaintiff-appellant argues that the City classified employees based on race when it designed trainings for employees of particular races, identified employees who could or should attend trainings based on race, excluded or discouraged employees from participating in trainings because of race, and directed employees to affinity groups organized around racial identity. The City argues that plaintiff-appellant lacks standing because he was not personally denied the benefit of the challenged trainings and was not required to attend any of the trainings. The City further argues that the plaintiff-appellant’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief could not redress his alleged harm, as he is no longer employed by the City. Finally, the City argues that it did not engage in racial classification because its trainings and affinity groups were voluntary, did not exclude anyone, and were not associated with any substantial benefit or burden.

2. Challenges to statutes, agency rules, executive orders, and regulatory decisions

Walls v. Sanders, Case No. 4:24-cv-00270 (E.D. Ark. 2024): On April 12, 2024, Arkansas teachers, students, and the Arkansas NAACP filed an action challenging Section 16 of the LEARNS Act, which prohibits the teaching of certain concepts associated with “Critical Race Theory.” The plaintiffs alleged that Section 16 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by chilling speech, discriminating on the basis of viewpoint, and disproportionately targeting Black students and educators. The suit followed the Arkansas Secretary of Education’s decision to revoke approval of AP African American Studies based on alleged violations of Section 16. On December 20, 2024, the court held the defendants’ motion to dismiss in abeyance with respect to claims involving: (1) public high school teachers’ Free Speech rights; (2) public high school students’ Free Speech rights; (3) public high school teachers’ Due Process rights; and (4) as-applied Equal Protection claims concerning African American teachers and students.
- Latest update: On August 5, 2026, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the as-applied equal protection claims, holding that although Section 16 might discriminate against certain ideas, “[d]iscriminating [against] ideas is not the same as discriminating against people, and the Equal Protection Clause is about discriminating against people.” The court declined to rule on the vagueness claims and ordered additional briefing on justiciability-related questions.
Landscape Consultants of Texas Inc., et al. City of Houston, et al., No. 4:23-cv-3516 (S.D. Tex. 2023): The Landscape Consultants of Texas and other plaintiffs sued the City of Houston and related entities, challenging its government contracting set-aside program for “minority business enterprises” as violating the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 1981. On November 29, 2024, the plaintiffs and the defendant Midtown Management District filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The City of Houston filed its own motion for summary judgment on November 30, 2024, contending that the plaintiffs lack standing and that the programs satisfy the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause.
- Latest update: On July 28, 2026, the court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, permanently enjoining the implementation of the City of Houston’s Minority, Women, and Small Business Enterprise Program and Midtown Management District’s Minority, Woman, and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Policy on the grounds that they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held, as a matter of first impression, that the constitutional framework articulated in SFFA v. Harvard (which struck down race-based affirmative action in college and university admissions) applies to race-conscious municipal public contracting programs. The court found that the City had failed to identify specific instances of past discrimination in its public contracting program and had not proven that the program satisfied strict scrutiny. The court also rejected the City’s argument that the claim was moot in light of a new ordinance that allowed vendors to meet contract participation goals through race-neutral alternatives “such as subcontracting with small or veteran-owned businesses,” reasoning that the new ordinance still mandated race-based contract goals and increased a subcontracting requirement as to minority-owned businesses. The court similarly found that Defendant Midtown Management District’s Minority, Woman, and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Policy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating on the basis of race.

3. Actions against educational institutions

Do No Harm, et al. v. David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04131 (C.D. Cal. 2025): On May 8, 2025, Do No Harm, Students for Fair Admissions, and a rejected applicant filed a class action complaint against the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, UCLA, and the Regents of the University of California, along with numerous individual defendants including regents, university administrators, and admissions committee members. The plaintiffs allege that UCLA Medical School unlawfully uses race as a factor in admissions decisions in violation of Section 1983, Title VI, Section 1981, and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The complaint also alleges that the University shut down an internal investigation into its admissions practices by requiring admissions committee members to sign nondisclosure agreements and refusing to assure cooperating witnesses they would not face retaliation. On December 23, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, omitting claims under the Unruh Act and instead raising only federal claims under Title VI, Section 1981, and Section 1983. On February 24, 2026, the United States filed an intervenor complaint, alleging that the defendants violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by intentionally engaging in racial balancing that confers preferences in admissions without a legitimate governmental purpose. On March 16, 2026, the plaintiff-intervenor and the defendants filed a joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice as to the individual defendants. On March 20, 2026, defendant Regents of the University of California filed an answer to the complaint, denying all claims and asserting various affirmative defenses, including lack of standing. On July 14, 2026, the United States filed a first amended complaint that added additional breach of contract and Title VI claims.
- Latest update: On July 31, 2026, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the United States’ Amended Complaint-in-Intervention. The defendants contend that: (1) the United States cannot claw back funds already paid to UCLA under DOJ grants because Title VI limits the United States to forward-looking relief; (2) the United States cannot seek to terminate grants that have no plausible nexus to the alleged Title VI violations; (3) the United States fails to state a breach-of-contract claim, as it does not plausibly allege that UCLA Medical School’s compliance with Title VI was a contractual obligation or material term of the DOJ’s grants to UCLA; and (4) the United States is not permitted, “by either ordinary contract principles or Congress’s Spending Clause authority,” to engage in rescission and restitution of federal grant awards. On August 14, 2026, the United States filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, arguing that: (1) the United States raises sufficient facts regarding UCLA Medical School’s alleged discrimination to state a violation of Title VI; (2) contract law applies to grants under Title VI and permits retrospective relief; (3) Title VI compliance is material to the DOJ’s contracts with UCLA Medical School; and (4) Title VI applies University-wide such that UCLA Medical School’s alleged “violations of Title VI jeopardize federal financial assistance at the entire university, not just the school of medicine or the admissions office.”
Fowler v. Emory University, No. 1:24-cv-05353 (N.D. Ga. 2024): On November 21, 2024, a former Emory University employee sued the university, alleging that the Vice Provost for Career and Professional Development discriminated against white employees in investigations, discipline, hiring, and promotions. The plaintiff asserts employment discrimination claims arising from “unlawful race, gender, and age discrimination and retaliation” in violation of Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Section 1981. On December 3, 2025, Emory moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence, direct or circumstantial, that Emory acted with discriminatory intent, that Emory presented sufficient evidence in support of its legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and nonretaliatory reason for terminating the plaintiff—specifically, that the plaintiff violated Emory policy by circumventing hiring protocols—and that the plaintiff failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the non-discriminatory reason for his termination was pretextual. On January 21, 2026, the plaintiff filed an opposition, arguing that the record supports a prima facie case of discrimination because he was treated worse than Black colleagues and because his supervisor had a stated preference for employees of color. He also asserted that the record suggests his firing was pretextual because it was not done according to policy.
- Latest update: On July 13, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Final Report and Recommendation that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, which was submitted to the District Court without objection on August 3, 2026. First, the Magistrate determined that the plaintiff’s age discrimination claim cannot succeed because his supervisor already decided to terminate his employment before soliciting the summary at issue. Second, the Magistrate found that the plaintiff could not succeed on his sex and race discrimination claims because (1) although it was clear plaintiff’s supervisor disliked him, a reasonable jury could not find that this dislike was connected to his sex; and (2) the plaintiff and his Black colleague were not similarly situated as they held different ranks, had different tenures, and had different disciplinary histories. Lastly, the Magistrate found that although a jury could find that the plaintiff’s supervisor was not truly motivated by the plaintiff’s hiring protocol violation when terminating his employment, a reasonable jury could not find that the real reason was race or sex discrimination.
Wang v. University of Pittsburgh et al., No. 2:20-cv-01952 (W.D. Pa. 2020), on appeal at No. 25-1816 (3d Cir. 2025): On December 16, 2020, a former employee filed this action against the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and other individual defendants, alleging that the defendants violated Sections 1983 and 1981, Title VII, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”) by removing him as Director of the Clinical Electrophysiological Program after he published an article criticizing DEI considerations in the cardiology workforce. On December 21, 2021, the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s discrimination, whistleblower, defamation, and Section 1983 claims, reasoning that the plaintiff failed to allege action under a policy or by policymakers, and that the challenged conduct was not state activity. On March 29, 2024, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims under Section 1981, Title VII, and the PHRA failed because he did not engage in protected activity and could not establish a causal connection between any purported protected activity and an adverse action, and because the defendants had legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for removing him from the role. The defendants further argued that the plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims failed because the plaintiff could not demonstrate a deprivation of federal rights by a defendant acting under color of state law. On March 26, 2025, the court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion in full, finding that the University of Pittsburgh was not involved in any alleged adverse actions, that the plaintiff’s removal from the role did not constitute state action, and that his comments during a private meeting with individual defendants did not constitute protected activity. On April 24, 2025, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal and summary judgment rulings. Briefing on appeal concluded on November 3, 2025. Oral argument was heard on March 2, 2026.

Latest update: On July 7, 2026, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the lower court’s motion to dismiss and summary judgment rulings, allowing most of the plaintiff’s defamation and retaliation claims to proceed. As the Third Circuit reasoned, “[a] culture that cancels instead of counsels sacrifices persuasion at the altar of power.” To start, the court affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim under Section 1983, holding that the hospital system, physician practice, and the individual defendants were acting as hospital employees rather than state actors when they removed the plaintiff from his job. The court also affirmed dismissal of the defamation claims against the journal’s editor and publisher for failure to plead actual malice. At the same time, the court reversed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s defamation claims against two individual defendants, the publishing association, the university, and the hospital system, reasoning that the truth of the defendants’ challenged statements (that the article was “racist” and “pseudo-scholarly” and that the retraction rested on “many” misstatements) could not be resolved at the pleading stage, and that the plaintiff plausibly pleaded actual malice where the speakers denounced the plaintiff’s article. The court also reversed summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s Title VII, Section 1981, and PHRA retaliation claims, holding that the plaintiff’s criticism of racial preferences was protected opposition; that his demotion, the ban on contacting fellows, residents, and students, and the hostile environment his superiors supported were non-trivial adverse actions; and that genuine disputes remained on causation and pretext. Finally, the court revived the plaintiff’s Title VI retaliation claim against the hospital system, which the court held receives federal funds to employ residents and fellows, and granted him leave to amend as to the university.

Legislative Updates

Missouri H.B. 2003: On June 30, 2026, Missouri’s House Bill 2003 was signed into law after a partial veto by Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe. The bill sets forth appropriations for the state’s Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development for fiscal year 2027 and includes a provision prohibiting the use of state funding for contracts, programs, or positions within higher education institutions that are “focused solely on diversity, equity, and inclusion, or similar initiatives.”
North Carolina S.B. 558: On June 24, 2026, North Carolina’s Senate Bill 558, the “Eliminating ‘DEI’ in Public Higher Ed” Act, took effect. The law prohibits public institutions of higher education from teaching so-called “divisive concepts,” defined to include the concept that “[t]he rule of law does not exist but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups.” The law affects instruction and programming at public colleges and universities across the state.

The following Gibson Dunn attorneys assisted in preparing this client update: Jason Schwartz, Mylan Denerstein, Anna McKenzie, Cynthia Chen McTernan, Zakiyyah Salim-Williams, Molly Senger, Katherine Smith, Cate Harding, Cate McCaffrey, Anna Ziv, Benjamin Saul, Amy Pan, David Offit, Olympia Karageorgiou, Simon Moskovitz, Teddy Okechukwu, Beshoy Shokrolla, Angelle Henderson, Lauren Meyer, Kameron Mitchell, Taylor Bernstein, Jerry Blevins, Chelsea Clayton, Sonia Ghura, Samarah Jackson, Shanelle Jones, Elvys Morales, Allonna Nordhavn, Felicia Reyes, Eric Thompson, Laura Wang, Duncan Taylor, Sam Moan, Shreya Sarin, and Rachel Schwartz.

Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, any member of the firm’s Labor and Employment practice group, or the following practice leaders and authors:

Jason C. Schwartz – Partner & Co-Chair, Labor & Employment Group
Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8242, jschwartz@gibsondunn.com)

Katherine V.A. Smith – Partner & Co-Chair, Labor & Employment Group
Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7107, ksmith@gibsondunn.com)

Mylan L. Denerstein – Partner & Co-Chair, Public Policy Group
New York (+1 212-351-3850, mdenerstein@gibsondunn.com)

Zakiyyah T. Salim-Williams – Partner & Chief Diversity Officer
Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8503, zswilliams@gibsondunn.com)

Molly T. Senger – Partner, Labor & Employment Group
Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8571, msenger@gibsondunn.com)

Greta B. Williams – Partner, Labor & Employment Group
Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3745, gbwilliams@gibsondunn.com)

Cynthia Chen McTernan – Partner, Labor & Employment Group
Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7633, cmcternan@gibsondunn.com)

Anna M. McKenzie – Partner, Labor & Employment Group
Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8205, amckenzie@gibsondunn.com)

Gibson Dunn was named Tax and Trusts Law Firm of the Year at the ALB Hong Kong Law Awards 2026. Representing the firm at the ceremony were of counsel Andrew Cheng and Arnold Pun and associates Hugo Choy and Peter Chau.

Presented by Asian Legal Business, the awards honor “outstanding achievements in the legal field, celebrating the exceptional performance of both private practitioners and in-house counsel in Hong Kong.”

In an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Balance of Power,” senior of counsel Ron Kirk said tariffs amount to taxes on American businesses and families and warns that small businesses and manufacturers will bear the cost of the current trade fight. Ron added that the integrated North American economy makes the U.S., Canada, and Mexico stronger and argued that China is the real economic competitor.

Gibson Dunn advised Berkshire Residential Investments on its acquisition of Limekiln Real Estate Investment Management, LP’s 50% interest in MF1 Process LLC, making Berkshire the sole owner of MF1.

The Gibson Dunn corporate team was led by partner Maxwell Ball and included associates Michael Naclerio and Julia Alonzo. Partner Roger Singer and associate Tom Rossidis advised on investment funds aspects. Partner Pamela Lawrence Endreny, of counsel Kate Long, and associate John Laughlin advised on tax aspects. Partner Michael Collins advised on benefits. Associate Jacqueline Rios advised on IP aspects.

Managing IP (subscription required) interviewed Jonathan Ashtor, who recently joined the firm as Co-Chair of the Technology Transactions Practice Group, about his hiring and the firm’s launch of a multidisciplinary Robotics Industry Group. The moves are designed to meet growing client demand at the intersection of AI, hardware, and IP.

“Tech transactions have always been my bread and butter, and I was fortunate to do some early AI deals before it was big,” he said. “While AI has always been a standout feature, my practice is broader than that, and that’s why I found it so exciting to build on the different flavors of technology transactions at Gibson Dunn.”

“Law has a dress code,” says Business Insider. “But a new class of lawyers is finding room for a little more zhuzh.” That class includes Gibson Dunn associate Vanessa Ajagu, hailed by the publication as one of the 9 Best-Dressed Lawyers of New York.

Vanessa says she purchases many items from Nigeria when she returns home for holidays, including demi-couture suits from Ohlanna bu Zikora, whose founder won the top prize in Nigeria’s version of “Project Runway.” For the office, she builds an outfit around one anchor piece, adding a printed scarf, statement earrings, or a dash of color. In court, she turns the volume down with a plain black suit so her outfit doesn’t become the conversation. “The client comes first,” she says.

Vanessa is a member of our Litigation Practice Group. In addition to being a fashionista, she maintains an active pro bono practice focused on appellate advocacy and the rights of domestic violence survivors, teaches legal writing at Columbia Law School, and sits on the board of several community organizations.

Partner Michael Farhang and of counsel George Adams have authored Global Arbitration Review’s [PDF] “Navigating Fraud Carve-Outs and Risk Allocation in M&A Agreements,” where they discuss what happens when a contractual representation or warranty in an M&A agreement turns out to be wrong. The article covers strategic considerations related to contractual representations and warranties and related fraud carve-out provisions, including forum and choice of law considerations and other key terms that drafters may wish to consider when formulating fraud provisions in a purchase or merger agreement.

“All these issues should be approached with care and diligence and parties will be well served by looking to clear guidance — including the case law and evolving market standard language — in drafting their agreement terms,” they write. “Adhering to such guidance may prove to be determinative in the outcome of later disputes.”

Partner Nigel Gleeson was named Private Equity Lawyer of the Year at the ALM/Law.com Asia Legal Awards in Singapore. The awards honor “the most significant transactions, cases, and legal work that have shaped the industry across Asia.”

Partner Gregg Costa authored the Wall Street Journal’s “The Emergency Supreme Court Order of Sept. 12, 2001,” which details what happened at the Supreme Court on 9/11 and the following day. Gregg, who was a clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist on 9/11, discusses Rehnquist’s insistence on ruling in Bagley v. Byrd, a stay of execution motion, the following day. Gregg also talks about Rehnquist wanting to keep a sense of normalcy with routine aspects of his life, including his weekly tennis matches with his clerks.

“The landmark decisions would come,” Gregg writes. “But when I think back on my time at the court and William Rehnquist’s leadership, Bagley remains at the forefront. The two pages it occupies in the U.S. Reports quietly announce that the Supreme Court, like the rest of the country, wouldn’t be deterred from its work.”

Partners Allyson Ho and Brad Hubbard and associate Elizabeth Kiernan authored The Texas Lawbook’s “SCOTX 2025–2026 Term by the Numbers: Petitioners Dominate as Reversal Rate Exceeds 75 Percent.”

They note: “The odds continue to favor the petitioner once the Court grants review and sets argument. The Court affirmed 24.2 percent and reversed 75.8 percent of the cases in which the Court heard argument and issued a decision, pushing the affirmance rate down 3.5 percentage points from last term’s 27.7 percent.”

Of counsel Benjamin Wilson and associates Stephen Hammer and Arjun Ogale contributed to the article.

Partners Jesse Cripps and Katherine Smith have been named to the Los Angeles Business Journal’s Leaders of Influence: Labor & Employment Attorneys 2026 list, which honors “some of the very best labor and employment attorneys in the region. These are the lawyers you want in your corner in court.”

Read Jesse’s profile: https://labusinessjournal.com/custom-content/leaders-of-influence/leaders-of-influence-labor-employment-attorneys-jesse-cripps/

Read Katherine’s profile: https://labusinessjournal.com/custom-content/leaders-of-influence-labor-employment-attorneys-katherine-smith/

Partner Colin Davis is quoted in Bloomberg Law’s (subscription required) “Texas Sees Growing Benefit From Corporate Push to Ditch Delaware.” He noted that both Texas and Nevada have capitalized on companies’ desire to reduce exposure to frivolous litigation and make outcomes more predictable: “If you can stop litigation from even being filed in the first place, you can avoid that time and distraction.”

We are pleased to provide you with the July-August 2026 edition of Gibson Dunn’s monthly European privacy, cybersecurity, and data Innovation update. Please feel free to reach out to us to discuss any of the below topics further.

European Union

07/27/2026

European Commission | Guidance | Cyber Resilience Act

The European Commission has published its guidance on the application of the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA), the EU regulation setting mandatory cybersecurity requirements for hardware and software products with digital elements throughout their lifecycle.

The non-binding guidance clarifies how key provisions should be interpreted and applied. It focuses on remote data processing solutions, free and open-source software, the notion of “support periods”, and the interplay between the CRA and other EU legislation. The guidance elaborates on core obligations such as risk assessments, reporting duties and vulnerability handling. The Cyber Resilience Act’s main obligations apply from 11 December 2027, with reporting obligations applying as of 11 September 2026.

For more information: European Commission Website / European Commission Guidance

07/23/2026

European Commission | Report | Adequacy Decision for the Republic of Korea

The European Commission finds that the Republic of Korea continues to provide an adequate level of protection of personal data.

The 2021 adequacy decision for the Republic of Korea allows the free flow of personal data from the European Union to this country. In its first review of this adequacy decision, the Commission confirms that the Republic of Korea continues to provide an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred. The report includes recommendations to further reinforce some of the safeguards provided by the South Korean framework, while acknowledging that the EU and Korean data protection frameworks have converged further.

For more information: European Commission Website

07/14/2026

EDPB | Decision | Objection to the Lead Supervisory Authority (LSA)

EDPB requires Belgian DPA to handle the merits of NOYB cookie banner complaint.

The decision concerns a dispute submitted by the Belgian Data Protection Authority (DPA) about a complaint against a Belgium-based company. The Belgian DPA, acting as Lead Supervisory Authority (LSA), proposed to dismiss the complaint on the basis of an abuse of Art. 77 GDPR and Art. 80(1) GDPR. The Austrian DPA, acting as a Concerned Supervisory Authority (CSA) since the complaint was lodged by the Austrian-based NGO Noyb, objected but the Belgian DPA still submitted the case to the EDPB. The EDPB considered the Austrian DPA’s objection relevant and instructed the Belgian DPA to not dismiss the complaint and to assess it on its merits. The LSA should now submit a new draft decision to the CSAs.

For more information: EDPB Website / EDPB Binding Decision 1/2026

07/08/2026

EDPB | Guidelines | Anonymization, Web Scraping and Blockchain

The EDPB has adopted guidelines on anonymization, on web scraping in the context of generative AI and the final version of its guidelines on the processing of personal data through blockchain technologies.

The new guidelines on anonymization bring clarity to the notion of anonymous data but also provide a practical framework for organizations to determine if anonymization is successful. In its guidelines on web scraping in the context of generative AI, the Board clarifies aspects of GDPR compliance of web scraping including the legal basis for such activities. These guidelines will be subject to public consultation until 30 October 2026. The EDPB also adopted the final version of its guidelines on blockchain technologies that can help organizations using blockchain technologies to comply with the GDPR.

For more information: EDPB Website / Guidelines 02/2026 on Anonymisation, Guidelines 03/2026 on web scraping in the context of generative AI and Guidelines 02/2025 on processing of personal data through blockchain technologies

France

08/10/2026

CNIL | Note | Data Protection Officer and Conflicts of Interest

The CNIL has published a note on how to identify and manage conflicts of interest arising from the DPO function.

DPOs will be in a situation of conflict of interest if they are entrusted with both the missions of Article 39 of the GDPR and missions likely to harm their performance, in particular where the additional tasks undermine the DPO’s independence. The CNIL recommends carrying out an analysis of potential conflicts of interest before assigning any new functions or tasks to the DPO.

For more information: CNIL Website [FR]

07/22/2026

CNIL | Tool | Pixels Recommendation

The CNIL published a Q&A answering the main questions raised by professionals regarding the implementation of its recommendation on pixels.

The professionals concerned have been required to comply with the CNIL’s recommendation on tracking pixels since 14 July 2026. The Q&A covers the scope of the recommendation, the responsibility of operators, the question of exempted pixels, the practical arrangements for obtaining consent, as well as the arrangements for applying the recommendation over time.

For more information: CNIL Website [FR]

07/09/2026

CNIL | Advice | Monitoring of Employed Person’s Activity

An employer has the power to oversee and monitor the activity of its staff and their use of workplace equipment. Nevertheless, this power cannot be exercised in an excessive manner and, depending on the technologies used, specific rules may apply.

As a general rule, the CNIL considers that three cumulative conditions apply to the employer before it can install a system for monitoring workers’ activity. To be lawful, a system for monitoring staff activity must cumulatively satisfy the tests of justification and proportionality, be submitted to the employee representative bodies and be brought to the attention of the employees.

For more information: CNIL Website [FR]

07/07/2026

CNIL | Advice | Mobile Apps and Geolocation

Following the publication of its recommendation on mobile applications, the CNIL has issued a reminder of the rules applicable to the collection and use of geolocation data from mobile apps.

Given the sensitivity of geolocation data and the risks associated with its use, the CNIL reminds that stakeholders must ensure compliance with applicable data protection rules. In this context, the CNIL is recalling the rules applicable to this personal data, as well as individuals’ rights to protect their privacy.

For more information: CNIL Website [FR]

07/02/2026

CNIL | Guide | Processing Of Players’ Data By Gambling Operators

To support operators, the French gambling regulator (ANJ), working closely with the CNIL, has published a non-binding guide clarifying how data protection rules apply in this sector.

Gambling operators process large volumes of personal data on players every day such as identity, contact details, banking data, financial transactions and gaming activity. This processing must comply with the GDPR while also meeting sector-specific obligations, particularly around preventing excessive gambling and combating money laundering and terrorist financing. The guide only covers processing tied to gambling activities under ANJ’s jurisdiction.

For more information: CNIL Website and the CNIL and ANJ Guide on the processing of players’ data by gambling operators [FR]

Germany

08/13/2026

BfDI | Press Release | Cookie Banners and Consent Management Services

The Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (BfDI) published recommendations on the handling of cookie banners and called for binding, machine-readable privacy preferences and consent management services to be anchored in EU law in further proceedings on the Digital Omnibus.

The recommendations are based on a nationwide survey according to which 60% reject cookies where this is possible with a single click, and 83% consider it important that their settings apply across all websites. The BfDI recalls that the Commission’s original Digital Omnibus proposal contained a provision (Article 88b GDPR) on automated, machine-readable consent and objection signals which was dropped by the Council and urges the co-legislators to revisit the issue in further negotiations.

For more information: BfDI Website [DE]

07/02/2026

Federal Government | Reform Program | Simplification of Data Protection Law

The coalition committee of CDU/CSU and SPD agreed on a reform program that includes plans to simplify German data protection law and to concentrate supervisory competences at the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (BfDI).

The Federal Government intends to simplify national data protection law and make consistent use of the opening clauses of the GDPR and will advocate at EU level for non-commercial activities (such as those of associations), small and medium-sized enterprises and low-risk processing operations to be excluded from the scope of the GDPR. A national Data Code is to harmonize and simplify data law, procedures are to be streamlined and supervisory structures simplified and bundled, including a concentration of competences at the BfDI. The independent data protection authorities of the Länder favor coordination within the existing federal structure over centralization; they support a Bundesrat bill, introduced on 10 July 2026, that would give the Data Protection Conference (DSK) a statutory basis while retaining supervision at Länder level.

For more information: Federal Government and LfDI Baden-Württemberg and Bundesrat [DE]

Netherlands

08/27/2026

Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens | Announcement | Mandatory Publication of GDPR Sanctions

As of 1 September 2026, the Dutch DPA (AP) is legally required to publish the administrative sanctions it imposes for violations of the GDPR.

Following an amendment to the Dutch GDPR Implementation Act (UAVG), the publication of administrative sanctions imposed by the Dutch DPA (AP), such as fines, orders subject to penalty payments and processing bans, becomes a legal obligation rather than a matter of the authority’s own publication policy. The AP, which has long requested this legislative change, considers that the publication of sanctions strengthens legal certainty, makes enforcement more effective and enables other organizations to learn from identified infringements. The AP will also publish sanctions imposed under the Dutch Police Data Act and the Judicial and Criminal Records Data Act in the same manner.

For more information: AP Website [NL]

07/13/2026

Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens | Guide | New GDPR Guidelines for Generative AI

The Dutch Data Protection Authority (DPA) publishes two new documents that help organizations with the responsible development and deployment of generative AI under the GDPR.

The DPA sets out that, while generative AI offers social and economic opportunities, there are also risks to fundamental rights such as the protection of personal data. The GDPR guide for developers of generative AI models outlines how generative AI can be used safely, responsibly and in line with fundamental rights. While this guidance provides legal frameworks for developers, the practical tool gives substance to the guide by supporting organizations looking to acquire, deploy, and use generative AI. This tool helps controllers determine which GDPR obligations apply and which technical and organizational measures are needed.

For more information: Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens Website, the Guidance and the Practical tool [NL]

Denmark

07/01/2026

Datatilsynet | Statement | U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling May Affect The DPF

Datatilsynet (Danish DPA) is monitoring developments following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Slaughter and is urging data controllers to revisit their assessments regarding transfers of personal data to the United States.

The DPA is monitoring the case and, through the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), is assessing what effects the ruling may have on the validity of the adequacy decision underpinning the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (DPF). The DPF remains valid for now until the European Commission or the Court of Justice of the EU declares it invalid. The ruling could also affect transfers made on other legal bases and the DPA is calling on data controllers to revisit the country assessment within their Transfer Impact Assessments (TIAs).

For more information: Datatilsynet Website [DK]

Spain

07/21/2026

AEPD | Report | Processing of Personal Data with AI

The Spanish DPA (AEPD) published a report on the accuracy, suitability and quality of data in processing personal data with Artificial Intelligence.

The report examines the relationship between data quality and the GDPR’s principle of accuracy in the processing of personal data, arguing that both must be interpreted in light of the purpose pursued and the suitability of the processing. While the two concepts are related, they are not equivalent. Data quality is the broader of the two, covering both personal and non-personal data, whereas the accuracy principle should not be limited to the veracity or currentness of data. This distinction matters particularly in the context of AI, where governance processes must align data protection obligations with the demands of developing and deploying AI systems throughout their life cycle.

For more information: AEPD Report [EN]

United Kingdom

08/26/2026

ICO | Progress Update | Children’s Code Strategy

The ICO published a progress update on its Children’s Code strategy.

The ICO’s Children’s Code strategy, launched in April 2024, focuses on social media platforms (SMPs) and video sharing platforms (VSPs). Since its previous update of December 2025, the ICO notes that it has launched risk reviews of 14 age assurance providers (with targeted recommendations and monitoring to follow), taken enforcement action in relation to alleged unlawful use of children’s personal information, and secured commitments from some SMPs to strengthen their age assurance measures and improve transparency. Addressing the government’s recently announced proposal to prohibit certain platforms from offering their services to children under 16 through amendments to the Online Safety Act, the ICO emphasized that data protection obligations apply irrespective of any minimum age or service restriction. The Children’s Code will therefore continue to apply to the services concerned, as well as to other SMPs, VSPs and gaming platforms likely to be accessed by children. The ICO indicated that it will continue to engage with the government and other regulators, in particular Ofcom, on the implementation of the proposals.

For more information: ICO Website

07/15/2026

UK Government | Announcement | Information Commission Board

Seven non-executive members appointed to Information Commission Board, supporting the move to a new board-led governance model.

The Information Commission Board will take over all the functions and responsibilities of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). It was established by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 to succeed the ICO as the United Kingdom’s independent data protection authority. The appointment of the new non-executive members forms an important part of the transition to this new governance model and will help shape the Information Commission’s strategic direction.

For more information: UK Government Website

The following Gibson Dunn lawyers prepared this update: Ahmed Baladi, Vera Lukic, Kai Gesing, Joel Harrison, Thomas Baculard, Ioana Burtea, Kelly Cannon, Billur Cinar, Hermine Hubert, Christoph Jacob, Yannick Oberacker and Phoebe Rowson-Stevens. Gibson Dunn lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have about these developments. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, the authors, or any leader or member of the firm’s Privacy, Cybersecurity & Data Innovation practice group:

Privacy, Cybersecurity, and Data Innovation:

United States:
Abbey A. Barrera – San Francisco (+1 415.393.8262, abarrera@gibsondunn.com)
Ashlie Beringer – Palo Alto (+1 650.849.5327, aberinger@gibsondunn.com)
Ryan T. Bergsieker – Denver (+1 303.298.5774, rbergsieker@gibsondunn.com)
Gustav W. Eyler – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8610, geyler@gibsondunn.com)
Cassandra L. Gaedt-Sheckter – Palo Alto (+1 650.849.5203, cgaedt-sheckter@gibsondunn.com)
Svetlana S. Gans – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8657, sgans@gibsondunn.com)
Lauren R. Goldman – New York (+1 212.351.2375, lgoldman@gibsondunn.com)
Stephenie Gosnell Handler – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8510, shandler@gibsondunn.com)
Natalie J. Hausknecht – Denver (+1 303.298.5783, nhausknecht@gibsondunn.com)
Jane C. Horvath – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8505, jhorvath@gibsondunn.com)
Martie Kutscher Clark – Palo Alto (+1 650.849.5348, mkutscherclark@gibsondunn.com)
Kristin A. Linsley – San Francisco (+1 415.393.8395, klinsley@gibsondunn.com)
Vivek Mohan – Palo Alto (+1 650.849.5345, vmohan@gibsondunn.com)
Ashley Rogers – Dallas (+1 214.698.3316, arogers@gibsondunn.com)
Sophie C. Rohnke – Dallas (+1 214.698.3344, srohnke@gibsondunn.com)
Eric D. Vandevelde – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7186, evandevelde@gibsondunn.com)
Frances A. Waldmann – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7914, fwaldmann@gibsondunn.com)
Debra Wong Yang – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7472, dwongyang@gibsondunn.com)

Europe:
Ahmed Baladi – Paris (+33 1 56 43 13 00, abaladi@gibsondunn.com)
Patrick Doris – London (+44 20 7071 4276, pdoris@gibsondunn.com)
Kai Gesing – Munich (+49 89 189 33-180, kgesing@gibsondunn.com)
Joel Harrison – London (+44 20 7071 4289, jharrison@gibsondunn.com)
Lore Leitner – London (+44 20 7071 4987, lleitner@gibsondunn.com)
Vera Lukic – Paris (+33 1 56 43 13 00, vlukic@gibsondunn.com)
Lars Petersen – Frankfurt/Riyadh (+49 69 247 411 525, lpetersen@gibsondunn.com)
Christian Riis-Madsen – Brussels (+32 2 554 72 05, criis@gibsondunn.com)
Robert Spano – London/Paris (+44 20 7071 4000, rspano@gibsondunn.com)

Asia:
Connell O’Neill – Hong Kong (+852 2214 3812, coneill@gibsondunn.com)

Gibson Dunn advised the Arab Company for Drug Industries and Medical Appliances (ACDIMA) on the sale of its stake in Saudi Pharmaceutical Industries and Medical Appliances Corporation (SPIMACO), a leading publicly traded pharmaceutical manufacturer based in Riyadh.

ACDIMA, a holding company that invests in the pharmaceutical industry across the Arab world, sold its 20% stake in SPIMACO through a series of transactions — a block trade and an accelerated book building process, both of which Gibson Dunn advised on.

Our team was led by partner Najla Al-Gadi, supported by associates Gaith Aljundi and Rand Shahin.

Partner Matt Axelrod was quoted in The Wire China’s “The Familiar Hong Kong Addresses in America’s Iran Sanctions,” which focuses on how several Chinese firms that have been included in the White House’s latest sanctions against companies it accuses of supporting Iran have the same address in Hong Kong.

He discussed the fact that the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has not added any addresses or companies to its export control list since October 2025. “It’s an important and powerful tool,” he said. “I’m not sure why BIS seems to have paused its use, particularly when it could be used in conjunction with the tools that Treasury is using.”

Matt is a former Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement at BIS.

Partner Matt Axelrod is quoted in the Wall Street Journal article “Huawei Faces U.S. Criminal Trial Weeks Before Trump-Xi Meeting” as saying that a guilty verdict could hinder Huawei’s ability to deal with some banks and customers globally: “It is harder to do business with companies that have been convicted of felonies. That is a significant thing.”

Join our lawyers for a recorded, 30-minute webcast covering several tax practice topics. The program is part of a series of quarterly webcasts designed to provide quick insights into emerging issues and practical advice on how to manage common tax problems.

Topics discussed include:

What is a Contingent Value Right (CVR)?
What is the tax treatment of a CVR?
What are some considerations relating to the use of CVRs in a tax-free reorganization?

MCLE CREDIT INFORMATION:

This program has been approved for credit in accordance with the requirements of the New York State Continuing Legal Education Board for a maximum of 0.5 credit hours in the area of professional practice. This course is approved for transitional/non-transitional credit.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP certifies that this activity has been approved for MCLE credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 0.5 hours of general credit.

Neither the Connecticut Judicial Branch nor the Commission on Minimum Continuing Legal Education approve or accredit CLE providers or activities. It is the opinion of this provider that this activity qualifies for up to 30 minutes toward your annual CLE requirement in Connecticut, including 0 hour(s) of ethics/professionalism.

PANELISTS:

Pamela Lawrence Endreny is a partner in the New York office of Gibson Dunn and a Co-Chair of the firm’s Tax Practice Group. Pamela represents clients in a broad range of U.S. tax matters. Her experience includes mergers and acquisitions, spin-offs, investment funds, joint ventures, financings, and capital markets transactions.

Jennifer Sabin is a partner in the New York office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. She represents clients in a broad range of domestic and international tax matters, including taxable and tax-free mergers and acquisitions (public and private), spin-offs, joint ventures, financings, capital markets transactions, and restructurings. Her practice also includes transactions undertaken by private equity, hedge funds, and asset managers.

Ryan Rott is of counsel in the New York office of Gibson Dunn. He represents clients on a variety of domestic and international tax matters. Ryan advises on the tax aspects of private and public mergers and acquisitions, spin-offs, joint ventures, restructurings and financing transactions. He also has experience advising on initial public offerings using unique structures and strategies.

The Release sets forth a framework for the basic elements that the SEC would expect to see in an investment adviser’s compliance policy on political contributions.

On Thursday, September 3, 2026, the SEC issued a rule release (the Release) proposing to rescind the political contributions rule under the Advisers Act (Rule 206(4)-5) in its entirety.[1] In proposing to rescind Rule 206(4)-5, the Release cites a number of “unintended consequences” arising out of the Rule’s highly proscriptive approach to regulating so-called “pay-to-play” practices, resulting in undue restrictions being imposed on the First Amendment rights of investment advisers and their personnel. Nevertheless, investment advisers will still be expected to address conflicts arising out of political contributions in their compliance programs, even if on a more flexible and principles-based basis. In addition, the overlapping state, local and self-regulatory pay-to-play regimes described below would be unaffected by the proposal.

The Release follows up on a speech given by SEC Chairman Paul Atkins in March,[2] in which he described the Rule as a “trap for the unwary.” The Release expands on this critique, identifying a number of unintended consequences in the manner in which Rule 206(4)-5 has been administered in practice, including:

Imposing de facto strict liability that may result in excessive penalties being imposed for minor infractions;
Imposing undue restrictions on hiring practices due to Rule 206(4)-5’s “look-back” provisions;[3]
Overly broad and vague definitions of key terms that have led some advisers to impose blanket restrictions on political contributions by their personnel; and
A costly and time-consuming exemption process that has not provided the necessary flexibility to make Rule 206(4)-5 work equitably in practice.

The SEC also noted that the Supreme Court has found that political contributions are a form of free speech under the First Amendment that may only be limited to prevent quid pro quo forms of corruption,[4] and concluded that Rule 206(4)-5 imposes significant burdens on investment advisers’ First Amendment rights without a correspondingly large enough regulatory benefit.

Nevertheless, if the proposed rescission of Rule 206(4)-5 is adopted, it will not relieve investment advisers of the need to address political contributions in their compliance programs. Instead, the Release makes clear that the SEC still considers pay-to-play practices to be in breach of an investment adviser’s fiduciary duties under the general anti-fraud provisions of the Advisers Act. In addition, the Release cites other applicable laws and rules that investment advisers must take into account in designing their compliance programs, including the Compliance Program and Code of Ethics Rules under the Advisers Act,[5] Section 10(b) of the ‘34 Act, Section 17(a) of the ‘33 Act, and various federal and state anti-corruption laws.

In light of these considerations, the Release sets forth a framework for the basic elements that the SEC would expect to see in an investment adviser’s compliance policy on political contributions, including:

An assessment of the investment adviser’s risk profile with respect to conflicts arising from political contributions based on (i) the adviser’s relationships with various government entities, and (ii) its personnel and the roles such personnel have;
Policies and procedures reasonably designed to mitigate that risk, including (i) monitoring procedures, (ii) pre-clearance requirements, and (iii) policies on the use of third-parties to solicit government entities on behalf of the adviser; and
Policies and procedures addressing remedial measures, including (i) seeking the return of offending contributions, and (ii) disciplinary action against non-compliant personnel.

While this portion of the Release can be read to suggest that advisers will continue to be required to impose Rule 206(4)-5-like restrictions on their personnel, the rescission of Rule 206(4)-5 would give investment advisers greater flexibility to design their political contribution policies on a more risk-based basis and to eliminate some of Rule 206(4)-5’s more draconian elements — most notably the two-year “time-out” on compensation from a government client and the look-back on new hires, which have long been the provisions with the greatest practical impact on private fund advisers’ fundraising and hiring decisions.

Unlike most of the rules adopted by the SEC under the Advisers Act, Rule 206(4)-5 explicitly applies to both exempt reporting advisers (ERAs) and registered investment advisers (RIAs). The Release acknowledges this and the fact that, unlike RIAs, ERAs are not subject to the Compliance Program and Code of Ethics Rules. Nonetheless, the Release notes that ERAs are still subject to the general anti-fraud provisions of the Advisers Act and could still be held liable under the Act for making political contributions that are in breach of an ERA’s fiduciary duty. As a practical matter, ERAs — including many venture capital fund sponsors — should be cautious about treating rescission as an invitation to retire their political contribution policies altogether, particularly where they raise capital from state or municipal pension plans that impose their own contribution and disclosure conditions as a matter of contract.

The SEC has requested comments on the Release on a number of subjects, including whether complete rescission of Rule 206(4)-5 is warranted or whether alternative approaches such as modifying the existing Rule to make it more principles-based and flexible would be preferable. Comments may be submitted at this link and are due 60 days after publication of the Release in the Federal Register. In a separate statement on the Release, Commissioner Hester Peirce also requests comments on whether other similar pay-to-play rules applicable to brokers and municipal securities dealers should also be rescinded — a question of direct interest to sponsors that use placement agents subject to MSRB Rule G-37 and FINRA Rule 2030.

Rule 206(4)-5 remains in effect and advisers should continue to comply with its requirements until a final rule is adopted. Advisers should not relax pre-clearance, look-back diligence or
recordkeeping practices in reliance on the proposal, and should be mindful that a contribution
made now that triggers the two-year time-out would continue to have consequences during any
transition period. That risk is heightened by the current election cycle, which is likely to drive
increased contribution activity by adviser personnel while the Rule remains fully enforceable.

What This Means for Private Fund Advisers

State and local pay-to-play regimes would be untouched, and are often stricter. A
number of states and municipalities, as well as many public retirement systems, impose
their own contribution limits, look-backs and disclosure obligations.
Contractual pay-to-play commitments will survive the Rule. LPAs, side letters and
public plan management agreements often hard-wire Rule 206(4)-5 by reference, so
advisers should check those covenants before loosening internal policies.
Consider commenting — particularly on scope questions. Advisers with public plan
relationships may want to weigh in on the “covered associate” definition, de minimis
thresholds, the new-hire look-back, and transition relief for contributions that have
already triggered a time-out.

[1] Proposed rule; rescission: Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers

[2] See Jessica Corso, SEC’s Atkins Promises Changes to Adviser Pay-To-Play Rule, Law360 (Mar. 23, 2026).

[3] For example, under Rule 206(4)-5, investment advisers can be held liable for political contributions made by new employees up to two years prior to the time such persons are hired by the adviser.

[4] See FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. 289, 305 (2022).

[5] Rules 206(4)-7 and 204A-1 under the Advisers Act.

The following Gibson Dunn lawyers prepared this update: Kevin Bettsteller, Marian Fowler, Shukie Grossman, Roger Singer, and Gregory Merz.

Gibson Dunn’s Investment Funds, Private Equity, or Securities Enforcement practice groups regularly advise asset managers on the matters discussed above. Please do not hesitate to contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, or any of the following practice group leaders, with questions.

Investment Funds:
Carolyn Abram – Dubai (+971 4 318 4647, cabram@gibsondunn.com)
Kevin Bettsteller – Los Angeles (+1 310.552.8566, kbettsteller@gibsondunn.com)
Albert S. Cho – Hong Kong (+852 2214 3811, acho@gibsondunn.com)
Candice S. Choh – Los Angeles (+1 310.552.8658, cchoh@gibsondunn.com)
Elodie Cinconze – Paris (+33 1 56 43 13 00, ecinconze@gibsondunn.com)
Xavier Comaills – Paris (+33 1 56 43 13 00, xcomaills@gibsondunn.com)
Shannon Errico – New York (+1 212.351.2448, serrico@gibsondunn.com)
Blake E. Estes – New York (+1 332.253.7778, bestes@gibsondunn.com)
Marian Fowler – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8525, mfowler@gibsondunn.com)
A.J. Frey – Washington, D.C./New York (+1 202.887.3793, afrey@gibsondunn.com)
Shukie Grossman – New York (+1 212.351.2369, sgrossman@gibsondunn.com)
James M. Hays – Houston (+1 346.718.6642, jhays@gibsondunn.com)
Kira Idoko – New York (+1 212.351.3951, kidoko@gibsondunn.com)
Duncan K. R. McKay – New York (+1 212.351.2603, dmckay@gibsondunn.com)
Gregory Merz – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3637, gmerz@gibsondunn.com)
Eve Mrozek – New York (+1 212.351.4053, emrozek@gibsondunn.com)
James O’Donnell – London (+44 20 7071 4261, jodonnell@gibsondunn.com)
Marie Préat – Paris (+33 1 56 43 13 00, mpreat@gibsondunn.com)
Christopher Scavone – New York (+1 212.351.4008, cscavone@gibsondunn.com)
Roger D. Singer – New York (+1 212.351.3888, rsinger@gibsondunn.com)
Edward D. Sopher – New York (+1 212.351.3918, esopher@gibsondunn.com)
C. William Thomas, Jr. – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3735, wthomas@gibsondunn.com)
Kate Timmerman – New York (+1 212.351.2628, ktimmerman@gibsondunn.com)

Private Equity:
Richard J. Birns – New York (+1 212.351.4032, rbirns@gibsondunn.com)
Ari Lanin – Los Angeles (+1 310.552.8581, alanin@gibsondunn.com)
Michael Piazza – Houston (+1 346.718.6670, mpiazza@gibsondunn.com)
John M. Pollack – New York (+1 212.351.3903, jpollack@gibsondunn.com)

Securities Enforcement:
Mark K. Schonfeld – New York (+1 212.351.2433, mschonfeld@gibsondunn.com)
Jina L. Choi – San Francisco (+1 415.393.8221, jchoi@gibsondunn.com)
Tina Samanta – New York (+1 212.351.2469, tsamanta@gibsondunn.com)

Gibson Dunn today announced that it has formalized its Higher Education Industry Group, bringing together more than 85 lawyers across the firm who have long advised colleges and universities on significant investigations, litigation, regulatory, and business matters.

The firm has represented over half of the top 10 U.S. News & World Report-ranked colleges and universities, approximately three-quarters of the top 20, and approximately half of the top 50.

Higher education institutions are facing heightened scrutiny from the federal government, including investigations, enforcement activity, congressional inquiries, and regulatory developments, as well as from internal and external constituencies that often have competing views and goals. Gibson Dunn’s understanding of government practices and priorities and the impact on constituencies helps colleges and universities chart successful courses through their thorniest issues. The firm currently represents six universities in more than a dozen DOJ and EEOC investigations and four universities in highly publicized congressional investigations and testimony.

“This is a moment of intense pressure on universities, with attention from Congress, the Department of Justice, the EEOC, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and private plaintiffs and advocacy groups. We help higher education leaders navigate this, looking around corners and staying focused on their educational mission,” said Jason Schwartz, a leader of the Higher Education Industry Group who Co-Chairs the firm’s Labor and Employment Practice Group.

The team includes lawyers who have served in senior positions across presidential administrations, federal agencies, and Capitol Hill, including former senior Department of Justice and White House officials Michael Bopp, David Burns, and Stuart Delery.

Gibson Dunn’s Higher Education Industry Group advises university general counsel, presidents, provosts, boards, and other senior leaders on a broad range of legal and business issues facing their institutions. Its experience spans government and internal investigations, congressional inquiries, regulatory enforcement, administrative law and rulemaking, complex litigation, employment and civil rights matters, crisis management, appellate and constitutional law, and business and transactional matters.

“University leaders are weighing legal, financial, reputational, and academic consequences at once, and they rarely get to take them in order,” said Cynthia Chen McTernan, a partner in the firm’s Labor and Employment, Class Actions, and Litigation Practice Groups and a leader of the Higher Education Industry Group. “We recognize that matters are won both in and outside the courtroom, and that a development in a legal matter can have a wider impact on faculty, students, employees, funding, and the institution’s ability to advance its academic mission. Our understanding of these multifaceted considerations helps our clients make informed decisions when the stakes are high.”

Learn more about Gibson Dunn’s Higher Education Industry Group.