Congress strips colleges' power to force arbitration, restores student court access

What it does

This bill prohibits colleges and universities from forcing students to sign arbitration agreements that would prevent them from suing the school in court. It also bars colleges from imposing other restrictions on students' legal rights, such as limiting their choice of venue, applicable law, or jury trial. Students would retain the right to pursue claims individually or collectively against their institution in a public court.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is straightforward: it strips colleges of the contractual power to force arbitration or limit legal remedies. This is a consumer/student protection measure that restores access to courts, not a regulatory carve-out or subsidy.

What the text implies

• Colleges may respond by raising tuition or enrollment fees to offset increased litigation risk and legal defense costs, potentially shifting the cost burden back to students.
• The one-year effective date creates a transition period during which colleges may attempt to lock students into arbitration agreements before the law takes effect.
• Class-action litigation against colleges may increase substantially, potentially creating new precedents in higher-education law and shifting institutional liability exposure.
• Colleges may face increased pressure to improve institutional practices (sexual assault response, financial aid disputes, academic misconduct procedures) if students can now litigate rather than arbitrate.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Students gain enforceable access to courts and jury trials against institutions, eliminating forced arbitration that typically favors repeat institutional defendants. The prohibition on venue/law/jury restrictions further strengthens students' ability to vindicate rights in a transparent public forum rather than private arbitration.

Who stands to gain

• plaintiff's attorneys / law firms specializing in higher-education litigation
• students (through restored legal remedies)

Named in the bill

institutions of higher education, students, Federal Arbitration Act (Chapter 1, Title 9, United States Code), Higher Education Act of 1965 (Section 102, Section 487)

Where it stands

11 cosponsors: 11 Democrats.

• Jun 11, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
• Jun 11, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text: CR S3348)”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

9 lobbying clients named this bill on 12 disclosure filings across 3 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $3,936,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 2 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 89% of bills with at least one filing.

Richard Durbin, the sponsor, reported $-29,800 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• American Association for Justice — $3,610,000 on 2 filings
• American Society of Association Executives — $230,000 on 3 filings
• Centralina Regional Council — $20,000 on 1 filing
• City of Fayetteville, Nc — $20,000 on 1 filing
• City of Winston-salem, Nc — $20,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 21, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.