Background: This research outlines important factors in the development of a for-credit internship program by providing a historical context of internship work dating back to the original case of "Walling v. Portland Terminal" (1947), which outlined acceptable non-paid work of trainees, to more current applications of these labor laws in "Wang v. Hearst" (2016) and "Glatt v. Foxlight Pictures" (2016) then connects those legal precedents with current research in best practices. Purpose: The purpose of this research was to examine legal implications on for-credit internship programs and create recommendations based on United States law. Methodology/Approach: This work uses peer-reviewed research to support recommendation in internship development, implementation, and evaluation. Findings/Conclusions: Recommendations for programmatic implementation are made to avoid potential litigation against higher education institutions, faculty, staff, students, and internship placement organizations. Implications: These legal cases inform higher education and considerations in change to organizational policies and practices as it relates to fair labor, program development, and oversight of experiential education.