Katie Meyer’s Law conditions eligibility for specified federal education funds on an institution’s adoption of a policy that gives students who are notified of alleged code-of-conduct violations the option to have an adviser during adjudication. The bill specifies how institutions must offer that option, the forms advisers may take, and the minimum training and communication rights advisers must receive.
The bill also amends the Higher Education Act’s campus security and crime-statistics disclosure requirements to add incidents of suicide that were reported to campus security authorities or local police. Both provisions create new operational obligations for colleges and universities and tie compliance to continued access to federal grants and programs defined under the General Education Provisions Act.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires institutions seeking funds under an “applicable program” to adopt a written policy giving students notified of alleged conduct violations the option of an outside adviser or an independent adviser provided by the institution, and it prescribes adviser training, update frequency, and permitted roles in adjudication. It separately amends Clery Act reporting obligations to include reported suicides in campus crime disclosures.
Who It Affects
All entities that meet the Higher Education Act definition of an institution of higher education and receive federal funds under programs covered by GEPA §400(c) must adopt the policy. Student-based organizations, alumni groups, confidential respondent services coordinators, Title IX and conduct offices, and campus public-safety units will need to implement new processes. State law and Title IX frameworks will interact with adviser participation rules.
Why It Matters
The bill formalizes an adviser role for respondents in campus disciplinary processes — a shift that may change how institutions run hearings and resolve cases. By tying the requirement to federal funding, it creates a compliance lever with teeth. The Clery amendment increases transparency about campus suicides but also raises data-collection and privacy questions for campuses.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill has two distinct changes for colleges and universities. First, it requires any institution that wants to keep receiving federal dollars from programs covered by the General Education Provisions Act to adopt a policy making advisers available to students who receive notification of an alleged code-of-conduct violation.
That notification must tell the student they can either bring an outside adviser or ask the school to provide an independent adviser. The institution can meet the latter option by using a confidential respondent services coordinator or by contracting with student peer-support or alumni support programs.
If a student chooses an outside adviser or accepts an independent adviser, the bill requires the adviser to be trained on the institution’s adjudication procedures. With the student’s written permission, advisers must receive progress updates at least every two weeks during the adjudication.
Advisers may act as advocates for the student in the process, or participate in whatever way state law and Title IX permit. The bill stops short of explicitly allowing lawyers to act in any particular way; instead it ties adviser roles to existing state law and Title IX authorization.Second, the bill modifies the Higher Education Act’s campus-security disclosure rule (often called the Clery Act disclosures) to add incidents of suicide that were reported to campus security authorities or local police agencies to the list of items an institution must include in its published campus crime statistics.
That change requires campuses to collect and disclose reported suicides in the same annual reporting structure that already covers other campus incidents.Taken together, the provisions create a mix of new procedural rights for students and new administrative duties for campuses. The adviser requirement changes the mechanics of disciplinary adjudication (training, update cadence, program agreements), while the Clery amendment expands what campuses must track and publish about crisis incidents.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Institutions must adopt a written policy offering students notified of alleged conduct violations the option of an outside adviser or an independent adviser provided by the institution as a condition of eligibility for federal funds under GEPA §400(c).
An independent adviser provided by the institution may be a confidential respondent services coordinator or supplied via an agreement with a student-based peer support program or an alumni-based support program.
The bill requires advisers—whether outside or institution-provided—to be trained on the institution’s adjudication procedures and, with the student’s written permission, to receive bi-weekly updates during the adjudication process.
Advisers are authorized to participate in adjudication either as an advocate for the student or in whatever manner state law and Title IX permit, explicitly linking adviser roles to those legal frameworks.
Section 485(f)(1)(F) of the Higher Education Act is amended to require institutions to include incidents of suicide reported to campus security authorities or local police in their campus crime statistics disclosures.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the Act the name "Katie Meyer’s Law." This is boilerplate but important because the short title is how the policy will be referenced in guidance and regulatory materials if implemented.
Funding condition: adopt adviser policy
Makes adoption of the adviser policy a condition of eligibility for federal funds under programs covered by the General Education Provisions Act. Practically, institutions must pass an institutional policy rather than simply allowing ad hoc practices; compliance will be evaluated against the written policy rather than informal accommodations.
Notification and how institutions may provide advisers
Specifies what the required policy must include: when a student gets notice of an alleged code violation the institution must offer the option of adviser assistance and must explain two paths — the student may bring an outside adviser or request the institution provide an independent adviser. The statute lists permissible institutional delivery models for independent advisers (confidential respondent services coordinators, student peer programs, alumni programs), producing flexibility but also requiring institutions to create or contract for those services if they want to rely on them.
Training, communication, and participation rules for advisers
Sets minimum operational rules: advisers must be trained on the institution’s adjudication procedures; with written student permission advisers must receive bi-weekly updates; and advisers may participate as advocates or in whatever roles state law and Title IX allow. This subsection ties adviser activity closely to existing adjudication processes and to external legal frameworks rather than creating a single national scope of adviser authority.
Definitions and Clery Act amendment
Provides statutory references for key terms — "applicable program" (GEPA §400(c)) and "institution of higher education" (HEA §101) — clarifying which entities are covered. Separately, it amends the HEA’s campus-security disclosure provision to add incidents of suicide reported to campus security or local police to required campus crime statistics, expanding annual reporting obligations and data collection duties for campus safety units.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Students notified of alleged code-of-conduct violations — gain an explicit option to have an adviser, plus a clearer, enforceable right to adviser training and bi-weekly updates, which can improve their ability to navigate campus adjudication processes.
- Respondents’ support networks (peer-support groups and alumni associations) — can be officially integrated into adjudication support through institutional agreements, creating formal roles and potential funding/partnership opportunities.
- Families and mental-health advocates — the Clery amendment increases the visibility of reported suicides on campus, supplying more data to inform prevention efforts and to support calls for additional mental-health resources.
Who Bears the Cost
- Institutions of higher education — must write and implement policies, train advisers on adjudication procedures, set up update protocols, and potentially create or contract with peer/alumni adviser programs; those activities carry administrative and training costs.
- Title IX and conduct offices — will need to coordinate training, manage adviser access and communications, and ensure advisers’ participation complies with applicable state law and federal Title IX obligations, increasing operational complexity.
- Campus public-safety and compliance teams — must collect, verify, and report incidents of suicide to include in Clery disclosures, which may require changes to reporting workflows, recordkeeping, and data safeguards.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between enhancing accused students’ access to advocacy and preserving consistent, fair adjudication across campuses: giving students advisers and formalizing their participation supports due process and emotional support, but it also creates operational burdens and procedural variability that can complicate timely, impartial resolution of misconduct claims and interact unevenly with Title IX and state legal regimes.
The bill blends student-support goals with conditional federal funding as the enforcement mechanism. That creates two implementation questions: first, how to define adequate training and independent adviser neutrality in practice; second, how institutions will logistically and legally reconcile adviser participation with existing confidentiality rules, disciplinary timelines, and Title IX procedures.
Training is required, but the statute does not set content standards, accreditation, or who approves trainers — leaving substantial discretion to institutions and opening the door to uneven adviser competence across campuses.
Amending Clery disclosures to include reported suicides increases transparency but raises privacy and classification issues. Campuses will have to decide which reports meet the threshold for inclusion, how to avoid duplicate counting, and how to protect sensitive health information while complying with public data obligations.
The bill also relies on withholding or conditioning federal funds, a blunt enforcement tool that may pressure smaller institutions disproportionately and could prompt litigation over what constitutes compliance or an "independent adviser." Finally, tying adviser participation to state law and Title IX introduces variability: states differ on whether and how non-lawyer advocates or attorneys may participate in campus hearings, so adviser authority and the student experience will likely vary by jurisdiction.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.