1. Home
2. Daily News
3. House committee drops information request…

Education Law

House committee drops information request about law clinics amid ‘ongoing negotiations’ with Northwestern

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 14, 2025, 10:59 am CDT

The U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Education and Workforce has withdrawn its request for information on law clinics at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, citing “ongoing negotiations” with the university and an intent to pursue “other means of inquiry.”

The committee withdrew the request Thursday during an emergency hearing in federal court in Chicago, a day after two law professors filed a lawsuit challenging the request.

A letter filed with the court April 10 said the withdrawal was based on the committee’s “ongoing negotiations with Northwestern University” related to alleged antisemitism, Law360 reports.

“We expect to pursue other means of inquiry in coming weeks as part of Congress’ oversight authority under the U.S. Constitution,” the April 10 letter adds.

The committee had initially sought information in a March 27 letter that expressed concern about antisemitism and funding of “left-wing advocacy with its institutional resources,” raising “significant concerns about the university’s role as a steward of taxpayer dollars.”

The suit alleged that the information request violated two clinical law professors’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech and association and their right to petition for redress of grievances. The suit also alleged retaliation for expression of First Amendment rights and violation of their clients’ Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights.

“Here, defendants threaten federal funding to Northwestern based on the viewpoints and associations of plaintiffs and their clients,” the suit said. “Defendants are leveraging funding to regulate speech on the basis of viewpoint and content.”

The committee’s request for information from Northwestern University was one of five information requests sent to colleges March 27, according to a press release announcing the committee’s retreat.

The suit plaintiffs are Sheila A. Bedi and Lynn Cohn, who work with programs operating within Northwestern University’s Bluhm Legal Clinic. Bedi is the director of the Community Justice and Civil Rights Clinic, while Cohn is a clinical law professor at the Center on Negotiation, Mediation, and Restorative Justice.

Jon Yates, a Northwestern University spokesman, previously said Bedi’s civil rights clinic represents clients across the political and legal spectrum, and cases chosen by the clinic don’t necessarily reflect the views of the school.

Yates also said the school is collaborating with the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law “to fight antisemitism.”

The case is Bedi v. U.S. House Committee on Education and Workforce.

Publications covering the dropped request, in addition to Law360, include Reuters and the Daily Northwestern.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Executive orders against firms threaten rule…

Law Firms

Executive orders against firms threaten rule of law, Susman Godfrey says in suit against Trump administration

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 14, 2025, 12:39 pm CDT

Updated: Susman Godfrey has alleged in a lawsuit filed Friday that President Donald Trump’s campaign of executive orders targeting the law firm and other well-known firms is an unconstitutional threat to the rule of law.

“The president is abusing the powers of his office to wield the might of the executive branch in retaliation against organizations and people that he dislikes. Nothing in our Constitution or laws grants a president such power,” according to the April 11 suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “If a president can with impunity seek to destroy a law firm because of the clients it represents, then the rule of law itself is in grave danger.”

If the executive orders against Susman Godfrey and other firms are allowed to stand, future presidents will face no constraint when they retaliate against different perceived enemies, the suit says.

“Put simply, this could be any of us,” the suit says.

Law360, Reuters and Bloomberg Law are among the publications with coverage.

U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan of Washington, D.C., granted a temporary restraining order Tuesday to block sections of the executive order denying access to government property and calling for an end to government contracts in which the firm provides services.

“The executive order is based on a personal vendetta against a particular firm,” AliKhan said during the hearing, according to a report by Reuters. “And, frankly, I think the framers of our Constitution would view it as a shocking abuse of power.”

Publications covering the ruling, in addition to Reuters, include Law.com and Law360.

Three other firms that sued over executive orders have also obtained TROs.

Susman Godfrey, a firm with 235 attorneys, describes itself as “the nation’s foremost trial firm” in the suit, Susman Godfrey v. Executive Office of the President. Susman Godfrey is represented in the suit by a legal team at Munger, Tolles & Olson headed by Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who was the U.S. solicitor general in the Obama administration and also was a former Jenner & Block partner.

The April 9 executive order targeting Susman Godfrey alleged that the firm “spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.” Susman Godfrey is one of the firms that filed a defamation suit against Fox News for false claims that voting machines made by Dominion Voting Systems were used to help former President Joe Biden win the 2020 election. The case settled for $787.5 million.

The executive order against Susman Godfrey seeks the suspension of security clearances issued to any of the firm’s lawyers; restricts access to government buildings for firm employees; bans the government from providing resources to Susman Godfrey, including compartmentalized information facilities; bans government hiring of Susman Godfrey employees; and calls for termination of government contracts for which Susman Godfrey has been hired to provide services, including clients’ government contracts.

Trump’s executive order “effectively seeks to create a new condition of government contracting—that contractors not work with Susman Godfrey,” the suit says.

That is an unconstitutional condition that interferes with a First Amendment right to associate and a due process right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, according to the suit, which also cites other alleged constitutional violations.

Susman Godfrey is the fourth firm to sue over executive orders. The others are Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie.

Firms that have reached agreements with Trump to avoid executive orders are Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Kirkland & Ellis; A&O Shearman; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Latham & Watkins; and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

The deals typically provide that the firms will provide pro bono services for projects mutually supported by the firms and Trump. Amounts of pro bono pledged range from $40 million to $125 million.

See also:

Which firms, legal groups, law profs signed briefs supporting Perkins Coie in challenge to punitive Trump order?

Updated April 16 at 8:45 a.m. to include information on the temporary restraining order.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

A federal judge on Friday refused to stay his own order allowing The Associated Press back into the White House press pool, dealing the Trump administration its second loss in the case this week.

In a relatively terse 5-page memorandum order, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in his first term, denied a request to stay the injunction pending appeal.

But there is time yet for the appellate court to grant a stay of its own. The Department of Justice filed for such relief on April 10 — two days after the lower court entered its order in the AP’s favor. McFadden took note of the leeway granted in his Friday ruling.

“The Court has already stayed its injunction, on its own motion, until April 13, 2025, to allow the Government time to appeal,” McFadden wrote. “The Court will not extend that stay further.”

The Trump administration is attempting to block an order by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., forcing it to let The Associated Press back into the White House press pool this week after the president tried barring the news outlet over its refusal to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.”

The Justice Department filed a motion Wednesday to stay U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden’s preliminary injunction issued on Tuesday granting the AP’s request to block the White House’s ban on its access to the Oval Office, East Room and other sites of press events — saying the ban amounted to “impermissible viewpoint discrimination.” McFadden noted how the AP was likely to prove in court how it “suffered unlawful retaliation for exercising its speech rights,” despite claims by the Trump administration that it deserved the ban.

“Access restrictions must be reasonable and not viewpoint based,” McFadden wrote. “While the AP does not have a constitutional right to enter the Oval Office, it does have a right to not be excluded because of its viewpoint. And the AP says that is exactly what is happening.”

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is forcing the Trump administration to let the Associated Press back into the White House press pool after it tried barring the news outlet over its refusal to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.”

In a Tuesday court order, the judge said the media outlet was likely to prove it “suffered unlawful retaliation for exercising its speech rights.”

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Donald Trump appointee who was put on the bench in 2017, agreed to grant a request by the AP for a preliminary injunction blocking the White House’s ban on its access to the Oval Office, East Room and other sites of press events. In a memorandum order, the judge reasoned that the government’s ban amounted to “impermissible viewpoint discrimination.”

“Access restrictions must be reasonable and not viewpoint based,” McFadden wrote. “While the AP does not have a constitutional right to enter the Oval Office, it does have a right to not be excluded because of its viewpoint. And the AP says that is exactly what is happening.”

A Columbia University student who is currently being chased down by the Trump administration has filed a lawsuit that aims to undercut the government’s ongoing search and apparent concomitant efforts to deport her.

Yunseo Chung is a lawful permanent resident who has lived in the United States since she was 7 years old, according to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Tuesday. Though technically a Korean national, the U.S. is “the only country she has ever known,” the 48-page lawsuit explains.

The 21-year-old junior has a 3.99 GPA and is highly engaged in various extracurricular activities, the lawsuit notes. Before that, Chung was her high school’s valedictorian. But the plaintiff’s academic achievements have seemingly been overshadowed by her participation in protests related to the Israel-Hamas war, the lawsuit says.

“Since 2023, along with hundreds of her peers, Ms. Chung has also participated in some student protests and demonstrations on Columbia University’s campus related to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and the devastating toll it has taken on Palestinian civilians,” the lawsuit reads. “Ms. Chung has not made public statements to the press or otherwise assumed a high-profile role in these protests. She was, rather, one of a large group of college students raising, expressing, and discussing shared concerns.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Supreme Court will review Colorado ban on…

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court will review Colorado ban on conversion therapy for LGBTQ minors

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 10, 2025, 1:38 pm CDT

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether a Colorado ban on conversion therapy for LGBTQ minors—which aims to change sexual orientation or gender identity through counseling—violates the First Amendment.

The high court agreed to hear a case challenging a Colorado law that imposes professional discipline on licensed counselors who engage in such therapy, report SCOTUSblog and Law.com.

At issue is whether the ban censors counseling based on the viewpoint expressed in violation of the free speech clause or whether it is a permissible regulation of conduct, as the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Denver held in the case.

The plaintiff challenging the law, licensed counselor Kaley Chiles, is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocacy group, according to a March 10 press release. She is a counselor with “Christian worldview” who helps clients with gender-identity issues, the press release said.

“Though Chiles never promises that she can solve these issues,” the cert petition said, “she believes clients can accept the bodies that God has given them and find peace.”

The press release said it is significant that the Colorado law “only prohibits counseling conversations in one direction. For example, it allows counseling conversations that aim to steer young people toward a gender identity different than their sex but prohibits conversations that aim to help them return to comfort with their sex when they desire that.”

Circuits are split on whether bans on conversion therapy regulate speech or conduct, according to the cert petition. The 11th Circuit at Atlanta and the 3rd Circuit at Philadelphia have ruled that the laws regulate speech, while the 10th Circuit and the 9th Circuit at San Francisco have determined that the laws regulate conduct.

Colorado’s brief opposing cert said its law was “based on overwhelming evidence that efforts to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity are unsafe and ineffective.”

The state argues that Supreme Court precedent “makes clear that the First Amendment allows states to reasonably regulate professional conduct to protect patients from substandard treatment, even when that regulation incidentally burdens speech.”

The case is Chiles v. Salazar.

The SCOTUSblog case page is here.

See also:

9th Circuit upholds ban on conversion therapy for minors in First Amendment challenge

Supreme Court declines to consider challenge to conversion-therapy ban; 3 justices would have heard case

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Law prof suspended over exam question, class…

First Amendment

Law prof suspended over exam question, class discussion can sue for First Amendment retaliation, 7th Circuit says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 13, 2025, 2:14 pm CDT

A federal appeals court has revived a First Amendment retaliation claim by a professor at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law who used an “expurgated racial slur” on an exam question, leading to an investigation, required diversity training, a suspension and denial of a pay raise.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Chicago ruled Wednesday in a lawsuit by professor Jason Kilborn, whose 2022 suit was dismissed in December 2023.

His federal suit had alleged retaliation for constitutionally protected speech, due process violations of the 14th Amendment and state law violations.

A university professor’s academic speech is entitled to qualified First Amendment protection under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the 7th Circuit ruled Wednesday in an opinion by Judge Thomas Lee Kirsch II, an appointee of President Donald Trump during his first term.

“We conclude that Kilborn has plausibly alleged that his speech is constitutionally protected and reverse the dismissal of his claim,” the appeals court said.

Because the appeals court revived the retaliation claim, it also vacated a federal judge’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and ordered further consideration.

The university had found that Kilborn violated the harassment section of its nondiscrimination police after an investigation that followed the controversial exam question.

The December 2020 final exam in civil procedure included a hypothetical in which a plaintiff alleged that her managers had called her a “n- – – – -” and a “b- – – -.” Kilborn’s exam included only the first letter of the word followed by underlined blanks. Some students were upset by the question.

The university then investigated allegations that Kilborn created a racially hostile environment for minorities in a class that he taught two semesters earlier by commenting on “cockroaches” and a “public lynching.”

The cockroach comment was part of a discussion on why defendants sometimes settle frivolous cases. The media only covers frivolous cases when the defendant loses, not when the defendant wins, he said. Kilborn said defendants fear that the public will learn about losses in frivolous cases, and “then all the cockroaches come out of the walls, they’re thinking, right?”

In the same discussion, Kilborn said, “I’m not subjecting my corporate bottom line to that public lynching; I’m sorry, that’s not the right word to use.”

In a different discussion on race-based traffic stops, the appeals court said, “Kilborn used an African American Vernacular English (AAVE) accent while repeating the lyrics of a Jay-Z song, which describes the pretextual stop of a young Black man (‘You was doin’ 55 in a 54.’).”

In response, the university refused to give Kilborn an across-the-board 2% merit raise and said he could not return the classroom until he completed an eight-week diversity training program.

Kilborn’s exam question, as well as other remarks investigated by the university, “address matters of public concern, notwithstanding the limited size of Kilborn’s audience,” the 7th Circuit said.

“The exam question was designed to give students experience confronting a highly charged situation that they may encounter in real-life practice and to be a continuation of the learning that occurred in the classroom,” Kirsch wrote. “The content, form and context of the exam question give no indication that it involved a matter of private concern, rather than serving broader pedagogical purposes. Kilborn’s in-class statements performed a similar function. They were designed to engage students and stimulate in-class discussion on topics of significant interest to the broader community, including frivolous litigation and pretextual police stops.”

Hat tip to Law360, which covered the decision.

See also:

UIC law prof must receive online diversity training, coaching before classroom return, letter says

Exam question wasn’t only offensive behavior of UIC law professor, according to internal investigation

Court dismisses part of UIC law prof’s civil rights lawsuit

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

A federal judge on Friday said it was “very concerning” that the Trump administration might not be complying with an injunction barring the government from trying to root out “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) initiatives.

During an emergency motion for a status conference, U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson, a Joe Biden appointee, tried to keep arguments to a minimum but allowed the parties some latitude to discuss the issue that necessitated the hastily-scheduled hearing.

That issue, according to the plaintiffs, is that language barred by the court’s orders continues to be used by administrative agencies.

An attorney for the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the lead plaintiffs in the case, highlighted a proposed contract between the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the City of Baltimore as indicative of the alleged flouting. That agreement states the city must “certif[y] that it does not operate programs promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion that violate any applicable anti-discrimination laws.” Substantially similar language appeared in a contract provided to San Francisco.

A group of First Amendment experts is imploring a federal court to order The Associated Press back into the select stable of journalists who make up the White House “press pool.”

In a Friday brief, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University says the government’s behavior necessitates giving AP journalists back their seats in the halls of power.

“Having created the press pool to enable access to the President in limited-space contexts ranging from the Oval Office to foreign travel, the White House has developed a forum — whether a ‘limited public forum’ or a ‘nonpublic forum,’ as the cases use those terms — from which it may not constitutionally exclude a news organization due to its viewpoints,” the amicus, or friend of the court, brief reads. “Yet that is precisely what the White House is doing, by its own admission.”