75 Am. U. L. Rev. F. 33 (2025).

Abstract

This Comment examines the constitutional limits of federal influence over higher education through the Spending Clause. Although Congress has long advanced national priorities by conditioning federal funding on compliance with policy objectives, the Supreme Court’s decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (“NFIB”) redefined the boundaries between permissible encouragement and unconstitutional coercion. Applying the NFIB framework, this Comment evaluates how federal conditions attached to higher education funding—such as those governing Title IX enforcement, the Gainful Employment Rule, and emerging ideological restrictions—implicate the coercion doctrine. It argues that while federal funding conditions can promote accountability, equity, and access, they risk overstepping constitutional limits when financial inducements effectively leave institutions without a meaningful choice. The analysis concludes that a recalibration of federal higher education policy is necessary to preserve institutional autonomy and uphold constitutional principles while advancing the public purposes of higher education.

* Brad G. Knight, Assistant Dean of Undergraduate Education, American University. Senior Staffer, American University Law Review, Volume 75; J.D. Candidate, May 2027, American University Washington College of Law; M.A., Media and Public Affairs, 2013, The George Washington University; B.A., English and Communication Studies, 2011, Nebraska Wesleyan University. The author thanks his parents for their unwavering support and Professors Cindy Bair Van Dam and Jessica Waters for their invaluable guidance. He owes boundless gratitude to his husband, Kevin Knight, whose encouragement made it possible to pursue a legal education—and, in turn, to write this Comment.