Plaintiffs allege that Defendants run a discriminatory program that awards grants to Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) while excluding colleges and universities that do not meet the 25% threshold of a Hispanic student population.

On July 24, 2025, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities filed a motion to be a Defendant-Intervenor. On July 25, 2025, the Department of Education (DOE) decided not to defend the constitutionality of certain provisions within the Higher Education Act that established the HSI programs at issue in this lawsuit.

The court granted the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities motion to intervene on October 10, 2025.

On December 2, 2025, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. They press that the Plaintiff-Intervenors' (National Association of Scholars and Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences) claims present no justiciable controversy and should be dismissed. Further, Defendant-Intervenor argues that Plaintiff-Intervenors "do not state that these alleged faculty members' institutions would in fact apply for a grant if they were eligible or that those institutions would even be eligible" if not the for the allegedly unconstitutional criterion. Additionally, Defendant-Intervenor stated that the DOE announced it was moving funds away from 2 of the 3 challenged Title V programs, specifically, the Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions and Promoting Post baccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans programs. However, it would continue funding mandatory funds that can't be reprogrammed due to a statute, namely, the Developing HSI Science, Technology, Engineering or Mathematics and Articulation Programs. As a result of the defunding, Defendant-Intervenor argues that Plaintiff-Intervenors' claims are moot.

On January 8, 2026, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. They argue that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs do not have Article III standing since they failed to identify a single member with a concrete, imminent injury. Additionally, they argue that Plaintiffs' claims based on the Title V grants are moot because the U.S. Department of Education reallocated funds away from those programs.