Skip to the page content
Your donations
Passes our checks

National Student Legal Defense Network

EIN 82-3474942 · Washington, DC

Public records show a registered, tax-exempt organization in good standing.

LegitimacyPassesRegistration and standingFinancial healthStrong100 out of 100GovernanceStrong93 out of 100Impact evidenceDescribes programsHow well its results are evidenced

What it says it does

THE NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK IS A NONPROFIT ORGANIZED TO ADVANCE STUDENTS' RIGHTS TO EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND SUPPORTING STUDENT' ECONOMIC MOBILITY BY USING IMPACT LITIGATION AND ADVOCACY TO PROTECT STUDENTS FROM PREDATORY LENDING AND ABUSIVE PRACTICES. OUR FOCUS SPANS THE ENTIRE STUDENT LIFECYCLE,FROM RECRUITMENT AND SUPPORTING STUDENTS' BASIC NEEDS TO EDUCATIONAL QUALITY TO COMPLETE STUDENT LOAN PAYMENT.

Income
$4.7 million
Spending
$2.2 million
Spent on programs
88%
Reserves
23.5 months of spending
Largest source of income
fees for its services, 59%
Employees
11
Volunteers
0
Highest pay
$270,881, president

Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2024, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate

Financial health

Strong: 100 out of 100. Higher than 86% of charities in its peer group (civil rights, $1m to $10m).

  • Reserves

    35 of 35

    Spendable reserves would cover 23.5 months of spending.

  • Debt

    20 of 20

    It owes 1% of what it owns.

  • Living within its means

    15 of 15

    Income exceeded spending by 53% of income.

  • Income trend

    15 of 15

    Income rose 50% on the year before.

  • Spending floor

    15 of 15

    88% of spending went to programs and raising each dollar of donations cost 2 cents.

Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2024, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate

Governance

Strong: 93 out of 100. Higher than 47% of charities in its peer group (civil rights, $1m to $10m).

  • Independent board

    25 of 25

    5 of 5 voting board members are independent.

  • Conflict of interest policy

    15 of 15

    Has a written conflict of interest policy.

  • Whistleblower policy

    8 of 8

    Has a written whistleblower policy.

  • Record keeping policy

    0 of 7

    Reports no written policy on keeping and destroying records.

  • Board minutes

    5 of 5

    Keeps minutes of board meetings.

  • Board sees the tax return

    10 of 10

    Gave the board a copy of this return before filing it.

  • Pay set independently

    5 of 5

    Sets its chief executive's pay through independent review and comparison.

  • Independent check of accounts

    15 of 15

    Its accounts were audited by an independent accountant.

  • No reported misuse

    10 of 10

    Reports no diversion of assets, excess benefits or loans to insiders.

Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2024, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate

Impact evidence

Describes programs. Its tax return describes what it does but we have found no measurable results in it.

Programs described in its return (1)
  1. $1.9 million spent. PURSUANT TO REV PROC. 92-59, 1992-C C.B.411, THE ORGANIZATION IS PROVIDING A LIST OF CASES LITIGATED DURING 2024.DURING 2024, THE ORGANIZATION LITIGATED SIX LAWSUITS AGAINST THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PURSAUNT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. 552, ET SEQ., COVERING THIRTY-ONE REQUESTS SUBMITTED UNDER FOIA. AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE, THE ORGANIZATION SEEKS A "FEE WAIVER" FROM THE GOVERNMENT IN CONNECTION WITH EACH REQUEST, ESTABLISHING THAT THE REQUESTED DISCLOSURE UNDER FOIA IS "IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST." SEE 5 U.S.C. 552(A)(4)(A)(III). THE ORGANIZATION HAS NEVER BEEN REQUIRED TO PAY FEES IN CONNECTION WITH ANY REQUEST. DURING 2024, THE ORGANIZATION LITIGATED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL MATTERS, THE SELECTION OF WHICH WAS NOT MADE WITH A CONSIDERATION OF THE EXPECTATION OR POSSIBILITY OF A FEE AWARD. (1) BALTEZAR V. CARDONA & U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, N.D. CAL.). THIS IS A CHALLENGE UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S 2019 REPEAL OF THE GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT RULE, WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT STUDENTS FROM CAREER-ORIENTED HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDED LIMITED VALUE COMENSURATE TO STUDENT DEBT BURDENS INCURRED. (2) DUNAGAN V. ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF ART (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, N.D. ILL.). THIS IS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION AGAINST AN INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION THAT MISLED STUDENTS ABOUT ITS STATUS AS AN ACCREDITED INSTITUTION. THE SUIT SEEKS TO HOLD RESPONSIBLE BOTH THE INSTITUTION AND THE OWNERS AND EXECUTIVES WHO PLAYED AN INSTRUMENTAL ROLE IN THE DECEPTION. THIS IS PART OF THE ORGANIZATION'S EFFORTS TO ENSURE THAT INDIVIDUAL WRONGDOERS ARE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR PREDATORY CONDUCT BY INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.(3) DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS LLC V. SOUTH UNIVERSITY OF OHIO ET AL. (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, N.D. OHIO). THIS IS A FEDERAL COURT RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDING INVOLVING CERTAIN OF THE DEFENDANTS IN THE DUNAGAN MATTER DESCRIBED ABOVE. IN 2022, STUDENT DEFENSE REPRESENTED STUDENTS TO PRESERVE THEIR RIGHTS, AND THE RIGHTS OF OTHER STUDENTS, AGAINST RECEIVERSHIP ENTITIES. (4) DETMER ET AL. V. LA'JAMES COLLEGE OF HAIRSTYLING, INC. ET AL (IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY). THIS IS A CERTIFIED CLASS ACTION AGAINST AN INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION THAT DELAYED DISBURSEMENT OF STUDENT CREDIT BALANCES, IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL REGULATION AND STATE LAW. (5) CARROLL ET AL. V. WALDEN UNIVERSITY ET AL (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, D. MARYLAND). THIS IS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, THE EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT, AND STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS. IN ADDITION TO REDRESSING WRONGDOING, THE CASE SEEKS TO AFFIRM THE USE OF CORE CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES IN THE CONTEXT OF FEDERAL STUDENT LENDING.(6) ARBITRATIONS AGAINST LAMBDA, INC. D/B/A/ LAMBDA SCHOOL OR BLOOM INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. IN 2024, THE ORGANIZATION REPRESENTED EIGHT INDIVIDUALS SEPARATELY PURSUING ARBITRATIONS AGAINST THE LAMBDA SCHOOL FOR MISREPRESENTATIONS REGARDING STUDENT OUTCOMES. THE CASES NOT ONLY SOUGHT REDRESS FOR THE CLIENT, BUT ALSO SOUGHT TO HIGHLIGHT PROBLEMS WITH REGULATIONS REGARDING UNACCREDITED "BOOT CAMPS AND THE USE OF "INCOME SHARE AGREEMENTS" TO FINANCE HIGHER EDUCATION. SEPARATELY, IN FULLER ET AL. V. BLOOM INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (FORMERLY D/B/A LAMBDA SCHOOL) AND AUSTEN ALLRED, ET AL. (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, N.D. CAL), THE ORGANIZATION LITIGATED A SIMILAR CLAIM AS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION AND TESTED THE EXTENT OF THE MANDATORY ARBITRATION CLAUSE THAT APPEARED IN THE "INCOME SHARE AGREEMENT." (7) DUNN ET AL. V. CARDONA & U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, D. MASS). THIS LAWSUIT WAS FILED IN APRIL 2022 TO CHALLENGE, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S UNREASONABLE DELAY IN FAILING TO ADJUDICATE A 2016 GROUP APPLICATION FOR STUDENT LOAN DISCHARGES SUBMITTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF FORMER STUDENTS AT KAPLAN CAREER INSTITUTE IN MASSACHUSETTS. IN AUGUST 2022, THE DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCED THAT IT HAD GRANTED THE APPLICATION. (8) HEMPHILL ET AL. V. CARDONA & U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, D.D.C.) THIS LAWSUIT WAS FILED IN MAY 2022 TO CHALLENGE, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S UNREASONABLE DELAY IN FAILING TO ADJUDICATE A 2016 GROUP APPLICATION FOR STUDENT LOAN DISCHARGES SUBMITTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF FORMER STUDENTS AT WESTWOOD COLLEGE IN ILLINOIS. IN AUGUST 2022, THE DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCED THAT IT WOULD BE PROVIDING $1.5 BILLION IN STUDENT LOAN DISCHARGES TO 79,000 BORROWERS WHO ATTENDED WESTWOOD COLLEGE BETWEEN JANUARY 2002 AND ITS CLOSURE IN 2016. (9) FAVELL ET AL. V. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, C.D. CAL). THIS IS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION FOR DEFRAUDING STUDENTS BY USING MISLEADING COLLEGE RANKINGS REGARDING THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION. IN ADDITION TO REDRESSING WRONGDOING, THE CASE SEEKS TO HIGHLIGHT THE PERNICIOUS EFFECTS AND ILLEGALITY OF "REVENUE SHARE" AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLEGES AND THIRD-PARTY ENTITIES THAT PROVIDE BOTH RECRUITING AND ONLINE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES. (10) NATALIA ORTIZ V. SABA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE & R3 EDUCATION, INC. (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, D. MASS). THIS WAS FILED AS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF MASSACHUSETTS LAW WITH RESPECT TO MARKETING AND ADVERTISING BY SABA UNIVERSITY. IN ADDITION TO REDRESSING WRONGDOING, THE CASE SEEKS TO HIGHLIGHT HOW INSTITUTIONS CAN MANIPULATE ADVERTISEMENTS OF STUDENT OUTCOMES THROUGH DECEPTIVE USE OF STATISTICAL REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING SUCCESS ON LICENSURE EXAMINATIONS.(11) ELVA LOPEZ V. CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SIMPLILEARN AMERICAS, INC (SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO). THIS WAS FILED AS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LAW WITH RESPECT TO THE MARKETING AND ADVERTISING OF A SHORT-TERM BOOTCAMP BY THE DEFENDANTS. I

Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2024, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate

Legitimacy checks

  1. Is it registered with the IRS? Passed.

    Listed in the IRS master file of tax-exempt organizations as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization.

    Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated October 13, 2026.

  2. Has the IRS revoked its tax-exempt status? Passed.

    Not on the IRS automatic revocation list.

    Source: Automatic revocation of exemption list, Internal Revenue Service, file dated November 6, 2026.

  3. Are donations tax-deductible? Passed.

    On the IRS list of organizations eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions.

    Source: Publication 78 data: organizations eligible for tax-deductible contributions, Internal Revenue Service, file dated October 13, 2026.

  4. Is it keeping up with its IRS filings? Passed.

    Most recent return on file covers the year ending December 2024.

    Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated October 13, 2026.

  5. How long has it been tax-exempt? Passed.

    Recognized by the IRS since June 2018.

    Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated October 13, 2026.

  6. Is it in good standing with state regulators? Passed.

    Not on California's list of charities barred from soliciting. Other states are not yet checked.

    Source: May Not Operate or Solicit for Charitable Purposes list, California Attorney General, Registry of Charities and Fundraisers, file dated November 4, 2026.

Ratings and checks are our reading of public records, using the published method. They are not a statement about anyone's honesty. If you work for this organization, you can send corrections or results, confirm you want gifts through Veridonate, or ask to be removed from giving.