Prohibits colleges and universities from forcing students into arbitration by removing federal enforcement of arbitration clauses in enrollment agreements and banning enrollment contract terms that limit a student’s right to sue, use a jury trial, or join with others in court. The ban applies to private and public institutions as defined under the Higher Education Act and takes effect one year after the law is enacted.
Title 9 of the United States Code (the law about enforcing arbitration agreements) shall not apply to an enrollment agreement made between a student and an institution of higher education.
Defines “enrollment agreement” to mean any contract or agreement between a student and an institution of higher education under which the student makes a financial commitment to the institution in exchange for enrollment in a program of study at the institution.
Defines “institution of higher education” by reference to the meaning given that term in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002).
An institution subject to Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act may not require any student to agree to, and may not enforce, any limitation or restriction on the student’s ability to pursue a claim in court against the institution. This includes limits on choice of applicable law, a jury trial, or venue, and applies whether the claim is brought individually or with others.
The Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect one year after the date of enactment of this Act.
Students gain clearer, enforceable access to courts for disputes with their colleges: they cannot be forced into arbitration or contractually barred from jury trials, particular venues, or choice-of-law rules. Institutions of higher education must remove or stop enforcing arbitration clauses and related restrictive terms in enrollment agreements and update standard contract language during the one-year transition. The change could lead to more individual and group lawsuits against colleges (including class actions), increasing litigation risk, legal defense costs, and potential liability for institutions; it may also shift negotiation and settlement practices. Courts may see a rise in education-related cases and will likely address disputes about the retroactivity and scope of the change. Consumer-advocacy groups and student organizations will likely welcome expanded access to court; institutions and insurers may push for other risk-management measures. There are no federal funding provisions, so affected institutions will bear compliance and potential litigation costs without new federal appropriations.
Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Last progress June 11, 2025 (8 months ago)
Introduced on June 11, 2025 by Maxine Waters
Updated 3 days ago
Last progress June 11, 2025 (8 months ago)