Judge Dismisses Federal Antisemitism Case Against Harvard

[cigaretteman]

A federal judge threw out the Trump administration’s antisemitism lawsuit against Harvard University on Thursday, a blow to the government’s efforts to force the university into a settlement. Read more ›

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Opinion here:

 

[Aardvark86]

Opinion here:

Interesting. Certainly a plausible - even downright refreshing - basis for resolution of a case like this.

But a tiny bit surprised to see it on a motion to dismiss before discovery (as compared, say, to a motion for summary judgment on a fuller record). But that may well just be a function of my ignorance of the specific TVI compliance process and procedural posture of this case -- presumably the agency already has "some" access to records through its regulatory monitoring and audit requests, and what we're really talking about is something closer to an administrative appeal from an agency record where there is no more discovery. Any further insight on that?

I also have to say the end part of the brief order strikes me as a little odd generally , but again maybe that's just a function of the remedial scheme. The court seems to be suggesting that "enforcement" (whatever that means) is only available if someone doesn't come into 'current' compliance, which is a classic enabler of yo-yo compliance. (And beyond that, under ordinary compliance principles, if specific incidents of noncompliance exist, it "may" well be a broader indicator of a less than functional compliance program.) It's also a little odd in that it makes threats to funds only a prospective damocles sword, and not a retrospective one. Maybe that's actually the way it is, but if it is, it's the only federal funding scheme I know of like that. At least outside of, say, the False Claims Act, which I'd prefer a lot less than an administrative enforcement action.

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

So. Much. Winning!