Summary of the Article:
- A Manhattan federal judge dismissed a race and sex discrimination lawsuit against NYU School of Law’s law review.
- The plaintiff, John Doe, is a first-year NYU law student.
- Doe sought class-action status for white, heterosexual male students alleging discrimination in the law review’s selection process.
- The judge ruled Doe lacked standing because he hadn’t applied to the law review.
- The complaint lacked factual support and was deemed speculative.
- The law review’s selection policy was revised post the Supreme Court’s 2023 affirmative action decision and found to be neutral.
- The case was dismissed without prejudice, allowing Doe to refile if his claims become valid.
- Doe is represented by America First Legal, with lawyer Jonathan Mitchell on the team.
- No comments were provided by representatives from NYU Law or Doe’s legal team.
A Manhattan federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit alleging race and sex discrimination in the selection process for the New York University School of Law’s flagship law review. An anonymous first-year law student brought the lawsuit forward, referred to as John Doe, who claimed that the law review unfairly favored women and minority candidates.
Background of the Lawsuit
John Doe sought class-action status on behalf of current and future white, heterosexual male students who aspire to participate in the prestigious NYU Law Review. These positions are highly coveted, often leading to significant legal career opportunities. Doe filed the lawsuit in October, asserting that the law review’s selection process violated federal laws prohibiting racial and sex discrimination in federally funded education programs.
Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.
Judge’s Ruling on the Case
U.S. District Judge Vernon Broderick ruled that Doe lacked standing to sue as he had not yet applied to the law review or faced rejection. Furthermore, the judge highlighted that Doe’s allegations were speculative and lacked factual evidence. The judge noted that the law review’s selection policy had been revised following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision curtailing affirmative action in college admissions and was deemed “facially neutral.”
Policy and Evidence Considerations
Judge Broderick pointed out that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that law review editors were circumventing the neutral policy to advantage women or racial minorities. The dismissal of the case was without prejudice, meaning Doe has the opportunity to refile the lawsuit if he can present substantial claims in the future.
Legal Representation and Responses
John Doe is represented by America First Legal, led by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller. Conservative lawyer Jonathan Mitchell, who previously sued NYU and Harvard Law Reviews for discrimination in 2018, is also part of Doe’s legal team. At the time of reporting, neither Mitchell nor representatives from NYU Law, including Roberta Kaplan of Kaplan Hecker & Fink, responded to requests for comment.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.