The amicus brief challenges the constitutionality of Trump’s March 6 executive order, which targets Perkins Coie. This order fits into the larger trend of the Trump administration sanctioning law firms and lawyers that have represented the president’s political enemies. 

“In their decades of government service, amici have never before seen or condoned an ad hominem punitive, and retaliatory order of this kind, attacking and intimidating lawyers and a law firm on the basis of their lawful activities,” the brief reads. 

Since being filed on April 8, the Law Clinic and Susman Godfrey have filed the same amicus brief in two related cases involving lawsuits from WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, other law firms that have been targeted by Trump’s executive orders. 

The brief argues, firstly, that there is no power in either an act of Congress or in the Constitution that grants the President this ability to target individual law firms through executive order. Secondly, the brief asserts that the executive order is an unlawful bill of attainder — a law that targets a specific person or group. 

The Peter Gruber Rule of Law Clinic has been recently resurrected after a period of dormancy, inspired by law students’ desire to aid in defending the rule of law against attacks from the Trump administration. It was founded in 2016 by professor Michael Wishnie ’87 LAW ’93 and former Yale Law School Dean Harold Hongju Koh. 

“[The clinic] demonstrates the will and passion that Yale Law students have towards their belief in the rule of law and ensuring that it’s upheld, even when it’s strongly challenged,” said Brady Worthington LAW ’27, a student who worked on the brief.  

The Rule of Law Clinic is joined in representing the amici by Susman Godfrey LLP, founded by Steve Susman ’62. On April 9, Trump filed an executive order attacking Susman Godfrey, suspending security clearances for individuals at the law firm. 

The list of amici includes 27 former government officials from across the aisle, something that Worthington noted he is “particularly proud of.” The officials have worked across seven decades of presidential administrations, both Republican and Democrat. 

“They all have come together to agree with this argument that this executive order is unconstitutional,” said Worthington. 

While the clinic was initially founded in 2016, it had gone dormant prior to last semester. After the election, YLS students sought to revive the clinic in order to defend the rule of law against the incoming Trump administration. 

Inbar Pe’er LAW ’25 noted that the resurrection was inspired by “students wanting to take action in the face of what we anticipated would be a mounting assault on the rule of law.” 

Pe’er added that students were inspired to use their legal education in an effort to combat visible attacks on the rule of law at the national level. 

Emily Elledge LAW ’26 stated that one of the main goals of filing an amicus brief is to look at filling gaps in the existing lawsuits, a role suited for students and law clinics. 

“I think the clinics have filled an important role for a lot of students that felt powerless to do anything while at law school. And this is just a small way that people can contribute to this larger fight that’s happening outside of YLS,” said Elledge. 

The Peter Gruber Rule of Law Clinic was also involved in filing an amicus brief on February 14th that supports the plaintiffs in Nicholas Talbott v. Donald J. Trump. The brief represents former secretaries of the Air Force and Army and argues against the legality of Trump’s executive order that would restrict transgender individuals from enlisting or continuing military service. 

Alongside the amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie, Pe’er, Fred Halbhuber LAW ’25 and Koh authored a piece in Just Security outlining the main legal arguments of the filing. The article discusses how bills of attainder are forbidden in the Constitution. 

Pe’er, Halbhuber and Koh argue that these executive orders both violate constitutional rights and the Constitution’s structure as the orders are “ultra vires, because they were based on no valid national security concern, issued without any colorable legal authority, and unconstitutionally interfere with the separation of powers.”

“Every Yale student knows that before Whalley, Goffe, and Dixwell became the names of local streets, they were English judges who found a ‘New Haven’ in 1661, after fleeing here to escape retaliation by a vengeful king. It is unthinkable that the early Americans who followed them to frame our Constitution intended to grant the U.S. president a unilateral power to punish enemies that even English kings did not possess,” Koh wrote in a separate comment. 

In looking to the future, Halbhuber cited that the clinic will expand going forward, picking up additional student support and engagement. 

“I think now that we’ve learned some lessons from the past few weeks and months we can hit the ground running,” said Halbhuber. 

The Peter Gruber Rule of Law Clinic at Yale Law School was founded in 2016. 

The post Yale Law Clinic represents 27 former senior government officials in amicus brief against Trump appeared first on Yale Daily News.

The Yale faculty letter states that the rule of law is “imperiled” when firms are singled out and threatened over pro bono work or past government service. The letter further slams the Trump administration for punishing people who “lawfully” speak out on matters of public concern. 

The letter also affirmed support of the First Amendment, citing fear that international students are feeling on college campuses due to threats of imprisonment and deportation over speech. 

“While reasonable people can disagree about the characterization of particular incidents, we are all acutely concerned that severe challenges to the rule of law are taking place, and we strongly

condemn any effort to undermine the basic norms we have described,” the letter reads. 

The faculty letter was signed by approximately 66 percent of the Law School’s tenure and tenure-track faculty — representing a majority of the 70 such faculty members listed on Yale Law School’s website. The letter was signed by 46 active professors and 17 emeritus professors. 

Among those signing the letter were three former deans of Yale Law School: professors Robert Post, Harold Hongju Koh and Anthony Kronman. 

When reached by the News, the organizers of the faculty letter declined to comment further, and the signees did not respond to requests for comment.

Gerken’s message, which was separate from the faculty letter, highlighted the rule of law and did not directly mention Trump. She affirmed the values of Yale Law School and the legal profession, citing the need to protect due process and free speech. Gerken added that lawyers should be able to represent clients without fearing “threats, intimidation, or retribution.” 

“Our legal system depends on the ability of judges to resolve legal questions independently, safely outside the shadow cast by threats of reprisal or attack” Gerken wrote. 

She added that the response to disagreement should be to appeal the order rather than impeaching the judge who issued it. 

The Law School’s spokesperson declined to comment further on Gerken’s message. 

The faculty letter mirrors the language and sentiments of a letter signed by Harvard Law School’s faculty, which was released on March 29. Harvard’s letter was signed by roughly 70 percent of its law school faculty, or 82 out of 118 active professors. 

Additionally nine emeritus professors and top deputy deans signed Harvard’s letter. Interim Harvard Law Dean John C.P Goldberg did not sign the letter. 

The Trump administration has attacked numerous law firms through executive orders, which describe “Big Law” firms as engaging in conduct “detrimental” to American interests. Many of the law firms under attack have either represented Trump’s opponents or investigated his allies. 

In response, some major law firms such as Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, have sued the Trump administration. Alternatively, law firms such as Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps and others have cut deals with the administration in defense of future punishments. These deals reflect that these firms capitulated to allocate millions of dollars toward supporting Trump’s agenda. 

Across the country, undergraduate and graduate students have faced threats of deportation from Trump’s administration. Trump first called for the deportations of international students who participated in Pro-Palestine protests as early as January. 

Jewish Yale faculty have also signed a letter denouncing attacks from the Trump administration that target pro-Palestine speech. Drafted by the Boston chapter of Concerned Jewish Faculty & Staff, the statement criticizes the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil. 

Khalil, who is a permanent legal U.S. resident, was arrested on March 8 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents following his involvement in Columbia’s pro-Palestine encampment last spring. 

Yale Law School is located at 127 Wall St.

The post YLS Dean, faculty speak out on “Rule of Law” amid Trump attacks on law firms appeared first on Yale Daily News.

On March 28, the Law School terminated Doutaghi’s contract, citing her “refusal to cooperate” with the investigation into allegations that she is a member of the Samidoun Network, a designated terrorist organization in Canada and a sanctioned “sham charity” in the United States. 

On April 1, Doutaghi and her lawyer released statements on X alleging that the Law School’s accusations of refusal to cooperate were “false.” 

A series of emails obtained by the News show a back and forth with Yale over the nature of questioning and the party conducting it. Yale requested a live interview, either in person or over Zoom, conducted by an outside counsel. In response, Doutaghi’s attorney, Eric Lee, asked to answer questions in writing and asked for confidentiality for Doutaghi’s responses out of concerns for her safety.

When reached for comment by the News, Lee wrote that Wiggins and Dana, the firm Yale retained as outside counsel, lists “Israel” as a “service.” Lee wrote that due to these “undisputed facts,” he and Doutaghi did not feel that Wiggin and Dana could be a “neutral arbiter.”

Lee added that Doutaghi was “very clear” that she was prepared to answer questions but Yale “simply declined to accept it.” 

Asked about the email communications, the Law School’s spokesperson wrote that the conditions set by Doutaghi and her attorney were “unreasonable,” such as insisting on responding only to written questions and refusing to meet with Yale’s attorney “simply because they disagreed with his client list.”

“Yale informed Ms. Doutaghi’s attorney that we had full confidence in our counsel’s fairness and impartiality and that all we were seeking were the facts to resolve this matter,” the Law School’s spokesperson wrote. “At no time did we receive any information to alleviate our serious concerns about possible U.S. sanctions violations.”

The Law School spokesperson referred back to a prior statement on Doutaghi’s termination for further information.

Lee and Doutaghi express concerns, Yale requests verbal interview 

Correspondence between Lee and the Law School began on March 4, when the outside counsel from Wiggin and Dana offered a meeting with Lee at 4 p.m. that day. The first email from Yale’s lawyer describes Wiggin and Dana as a law firm that advises the University on “compliance with laws enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control.”

According to the emails, Lee and Yale’s external counsel met for a brief phone call, after which Lee requested 24 hours of additional time for Doutaghi to respond as she was fasting for Ramadan.

That same day, at approximately 5:30 p.m., the Law School put Doutaghi on immediate administrative leave.

“The university very much wants to understand the facts from Ms. Doutaghi’s point of view, but in light of the seriousness of this matter, the Dean of Yale Law School, Heather Gerken has deemed an administrative leave a necessary interim action,” reads the email from Yale’s lawyer from that day.

In the same email, Yale’s lawyer wrote that neither Lee nor Doutaghi “provided” the University with any facts that would allow it to assess the allegations reasonably. 

The next day, Lee responded with concerns over Yale removing Doutaghi from her University positions. Lee alleged that Doutaghi was put on immediate administrative leave “without due process,” describing the “Jewish Onliner,” which first reported the allegations, as “illegitimate” and “disreputable.”

In the email, Lee wrote that the “Jewish Onliner” lacks a Wikipedia page and cited an investigation from Haaretz that describes the “Jewish Onliner” as a “Pro-Israel Social Media Bot” powered by artificial intelligence.

The Law School’s official statement says that Yale “independently reviewed source materials,” drawing attention to text on the Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network’s website that identified Doutaghi as a member of its organization.

“To be clear, Yale does not take administrative action based on press reports and such an action is never initiated based on a person’s protected speech,” the Law School statement reads.

Lee also mentioned in the email that the publication led Doutaghi to receive hateful and threatening messages.

“Given your actions thus far, we have no reason to believe that the ‘interview’ with [Yale’s external counsel] is being proposed in good faith. We are also investigating the likelihood that this behavior violated Title VII,” Lee’s email reads further. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

In response, Yale’s lawyer stated that the Law School staff had been scheduled to speak with Doutaghi to review the circumstances and the “best approach for proceeding.” Yale’s lawyer wrote that they were informed that Doutaghi did not wish to meet as scheduled after hiring Lee’s services.

Yale’s lawyer further defended the use of relying on outside counsel.

“Because the allegations involved possible U.S. sanctions violations, the university deemed it essential for attorneys with expertise in sanctions-related investigations, to learn the facts and assist the university in evaluating its sanctions compliance,” reads Yale’s response.

In the same email, Yale’s lawyer invited Lee to attend the meeting.

In a follow-up email, Lee stated that Doutaghi didn’t cancel the meeting, but that the Law School’s staff did. Lee then doubled down on asking about the “Jewish Onliner” and whether Yale was aware that this was an “illegitimate source” at the time of requesting an interview.

Yale did not respond to Lee’s email for two weeks. On March 20, Yale’s lawyer reached out to Lee, writing that Yale “still awaits answers from Ms. Doutaghi.” In the email, Yale’s lawyer affirms the request for a meeting between Doutaghi and Yale’s counsel.

“As a Yale employee, Ms. Doutaghi has obligations to the university to answer in good faith the concerns raised regarding U.S. sanctions violations,” Yale’s lawyer wrote.

Yale requested that the information be received by March 27. That deadline was later extended by a day to March 28 at 3 p.m. 

Lee acknowledged receipt of the email later that same day it was sent on March 20. He followed up on March 21, proposing that Doutaghi answer questions in writing from Yale and not from outside counsel. He further asked about the confidentiality of Doutaghi’s responses.

On Monday, March 24, Yale’s lawyer reiterated the need for a live meeting, either in person or on Zoom. The email further affirms faith in Yale’s outside counsel.

“We must be able to ask her questions, consider her answers, and ask her follow up questions in real time,” Yale’s lawyer wrote.

In that same email, Yale’s lawyer added that there is “no point” in discussing confidentiality until Doutaghi makes herself available for a meeting.

On March 28, the final day agreed upon for Doutaghi to respond to allegations, Lee emailed Yale’s lawyer discussing three proposed conditions: that the questions be answered in writing, that the outside counsel does not conduct questioning and that Doutaghi’s answers remain confidential.

Later on that same day, in the last email obtained by the News, Yale’s lawyer wrote that a live interview was necessary and “urged” Doutaghi to meet with the outside counsel before 3 p.m. The email added that the Law School has been clear from the “onset” that a meeting was necessary.

The News learned that Doutaghi’s employment was terminated later that day at 3:46 p.m. Her employment was set to expire in April. 

“As a result of her refusal to cooperate with this investigation, Ms. Doutaghi’s employment with Yale — which was already set to expire this April — has been terminated effective immediately,” the Law School released in a statement issued that day in response to an inquiry by the News. 

Doutaghi began working as an associate research scholar at the Law School in 2023.

The post Before Doutaghi was fired, her lawyer clashed with Yale Law School for weeks, emails reveal appeared first on Yale Daily News.

Knowles is a conservative commentator who works for The Daily Wire and “The Michael Knowles Show,” a daily podcast. At the event, he discussed his opposition to mass immigration and transgender identity, as well as the role of finding the truth in college education. 

“Frivolous people see freedom in openness or diversity … serious people, serious schools, serious societies see the truth because they know that only the truth can set us free,” said Knowles. 

The event hosted in SSS 114 drew a crowd of up to 200, per Yale College Republicans, and included heavy security. Attendees were not allowed to bring bags and had to pass through a metal detector stick before entering. Knowles was flanked by security guards as he walked onto the stage.

The event was hosted by Yale College Republicans, with additional support from Young America’s Foundation and the William F. Buckley campus Lecture Series. It was opened with a speech from Yale College Republicans president Manu Anpalagan ’26, in which Anpalagan outlined the mission and goals of the newly revived organization. 

“This isn’t just a club for conservatives. It’s a club for everyone who wants to put the American people first,” said Anpalagan, describing Yale College Republicans as an organization that speaks for common sense and for common people.

Knowles began by addressing news that Yale professor Jason Stanley is leaving Yale and America for a position at Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. Knowles targeted Stanley’s assertions that President Donald Trump is a fascist, claiming that Stanley’s argument that Trump is using the state to target political opponents is actually characteristic of the Democratic Party.

Knowles’s speech argued that truth is the fundamental purpose of a university, rather than keeping a completely open mind and exploring all new ideas. Knowles also argued that universities have lost their common sense, saying that the average American voter does not have a college degree but is closer to the truth than educated elites.

Knowles related this idea to gender identity, discussing transgender rights as a “litmus test for common sense.”

“If a politician cannot tell the difference between a man and a woman, why should anyone think that his judgment would function well when it comes to the economy or national security or immigration or anything else,” said Knowles.

Following the event, Knowles fielded questions on topics ranging from the future of education in America to one comparing abortion to slavery. Many of these questions centered on immigration and American identity.

In response to the first question, Knowles stated that immigration threatens America as a place, a people and a cultural tradition. 

“We need to drastically reduce all immigration. That’s what most people want,” said Knowles. 

Responding to a later question, Knowles stated that immigrants should have “humility and gratitude” rather than demanding change within the country.

In light of a question on one of his past statements, Knowles affirmed his previous stance that abortion is worse than slavery. 

“Torrent murder, especially to murder the most innocent person you can imagine, [is worse] than servitude, even if servitude is bad, too” said Knowles. 

Zach Pan ’27 asked a question regarding the Great Replacement theory, a conspiracy theory that asserts that non-white immigrants are systematically “replacing” white Europeans. In his question, Pan cited that the Anti-Defamation League classifies the Great Replacement theory as antisemitic. Pan asked if Knowles stood by the previous support of the theory. 

Knowles’ response affirmed his backing of the Great Replacement theory, arguing that Democrats are actively acknowledging that they are replacing white American workers with immigrants. 

“The Great Replacement theory is vile and the fact that Mr. Knowles doubled down on perpetuating it is shameful,” said Pan in a later interview with the News.

Knowles and Pan debate one-on-one

Following the speaker event and the Q&A, Pan and Knowles met to further discuss immigration policy.

In the 20 minute discussion, which was filmed by Knowles’ team, Knowles and Pan clashed on what the purpose of the country was, and what duty America has to refugees and asylum seekers.

In the debate, Pan cited both moral and economic reasons for welcoming additional immigrants. Meanwhile, Knowles argued for limited immigration and cited assimilation concerns, arguing that America has slid from when it had a national language of English.

After the event, Knowles noted, “It’s lovely that people came out to listen, even to a politically unpopular opinion on campus.” 

Michael Knowles’ Youtube channel has 2.3 million subscribers.

Correction, April 7: A previous version of the article underestimated attendance at the event.

The post Michael Knowles ’12 preaches hard right stances at Yale College Republicans event appeared first on Yale Daily News.

According to a statement from the Law School, over the last three weeks, Yale has requested to meet with Doutaghi and her attorney. Per the statement, Doutaghi has “refused” to meet or provide responses to questions of whether she has engaged in prohibited activity with organizations or individuals placed on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons list. 

“As a result of her refusal to cooperate with this investigation, Ms. Doutaghi’s employment with Yale — which was already set to expire this April — has been terminated effective immediately,” the Law School released in a statement issued in response to an inquiry by the News. 

In an email to the News, Doutaghi described the Law School statement as one “capitulating” to the Trump administration’s attack on free speech rights of “non-citizens.” 

“The claim that I ‘refused to cooperate’ is simply wrong. I made repeated offers to answer Yale’s questions in writing and Yale refused each time,” Doutaghi wrote to the News. 

When reached for comment, the Law School referred the News back to its original statement. 

The Law School first put Doutaghi on administrative leave on Tuesday, March 4. The Jewish Onliner reported the allegations on Sunday, March 2, claiming that Doutaghi is a member of the international Samidoun network, or Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network. The U.S Department of the Treasury identified Samidoun as a “sham charity” that is a fundraising front for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorist organization.

The statement adds that Yale “independently reviewed source materials,” drawing attention to text on the Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network’s website that identified Doutaghi as a member of its organization. 

On March 12, Doutaghi released a statement on X asserting her innocence and alleging “bad faith” on behalf of YLS, describing allegations as “AI-Fabricated claims.” 

“What is clear is that YLS actions constitute a blatant act of retaliation against Palestinian solidarity  – a violation of my constitutional rights, free speech, academic freedom, and fundamental due process rights,” Doutaghi wrote. 

At Yale Law School, Doutaghi has worked as an associate research scholar and a deputy director of the Law and Political Economy Project since September 2023. Before serving as an associate research scholar at Yale, Doutaghi taught topics including social justice and international human rights at Carleton University. 

The position was expected to expire next month.

Doutaghi’s lawyer, Eric Lee, issued an additional statement. Lee’s statement reads that Yale is “bending the knee” to efforts from the Trump administration to suppress freedom of speech and academic freedom on college campuses. 

Lee’s statement calls on Yale to reinstate Doutaghi, restore her access to campus and email, and to take public action to restore her reputation. 

Since the initial allegations, the New York Times reported that the Jewish Onliner says it is “empowered by A.I. capabilities” on its website. The Jewish Onliner does not identify any reporters on its site. 

Doutaghi’s statement alleges the role of AI in generating allegations and is titled, “Suspended for Pro-Palestine Speech: My Statement on Yale Law School’s Embrace of AI-Generated Smears.” 

The Law School noted that the suspension is not based on violating Doutaghi’s protected speech. 

“To be clear, Yale does not take administrative action based on press reports and such an action is never initiated based on a person’s protected speech,” the Law School statement reads.

Yale Law School is located at 127 Wall St.

Update, March 28: This article was updated to include a comment from Helyeh Doutaghi.

The post Yale Law School terminates scholar amid terrorist link allegations, cites “refusal to cooperate”  appeared first on Yale Daily News.

The event highlighted the need for specificity in requests, the potential for delays and the importance of conducting research before filing FOIA requests. It was co-sponsored by the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic, the Abrams Institute for Freedom of Speech and the Information Society Project.

“People should know what the government is up to,” said Al-Amyn Sumar, a senior counsel at the New York Times Company who spoke on the panel.

Throughout the evening, students heard from Sumar, Jason Leopold, a senior investigative reporter on the Bloomberg News investigations team, and Tim Tai LAW ’24, a former photography editor for the News and the First Amendment Fellow at The New York Times.

The Freedom of Information Act grants the public the right to access governmental records. FOIA outlines that federal agencies must disclose requested information unless it falls under nine specific exemptions, including personal privacy and national security.

“I think that the Bootcamp proves significant every year, as we always aim to impart foundational skills (how to navigate FOIA, draft requests, negotiate with agencies, and litigate claims) to the journalists, activists, and citizens who attend, new and experienced alike,” wrote Benjamin Gervin ’26, the communications manager of the MFIA Clinic.

The panelists noted that the FOIA system is susceptible to long delays and wait times depending on which agency is supplying the documents and discussed how this could change amidst a new presidential administration.

Tai said he is wondering about how FOIA and public transparency will be handled under the current administration. Although he noted that it may become increasingly harder to get public documents from federal agencies, he added, “That’s not to say that we shouldn’t be trying.”

“Under the Trump administration, it’s still very early days, but it’s fair to say that the problems that we currently have will get worse,” Sumar said.

The panelists emphasized that specificity increases the chances of a shorter wait time. Leopold highlighted that many of these agencies are already dealing with backlogs.

Leopold also affirmed the need to conduct detailed research on the structure of a given agency before submitting the actual FOIA request.

“You need to approach FOIA as you would an investigative story,” noted Leopold, describing FOIA as its own journalistic “beat.”

The panelists further focused on the nine FOIA exemptions, emphasizing the challenges in overcoming them.

Mirabel Raphael ’28 attended the event because she wanted to learn more about accessing government records for research purposes.

In light of Trump taking office in January, Raphael anticipates the potential for increased hostility to citizen requests for transparency along with decreased safeguarding of classified information from the federal government.

“I feel that the significance of this event amidst a new presidential term is to lay the groundwork for us to understand what the landscape of FOIA was prior to Trump coming into office, so we can understand any changes that come from his administration,” Raphael wrote to the News.

Gervin described the takeaway from the guest speakers as “astute,” adding that he appreciated hearing from the range of journalistic professions represented on the panel.

The Freedom of Information Act was enacted in 1966.

The post Yale Law School hosts 12th annual FOIA bootcamp appeared first on Yale Daily News.

The Jewish Onliner first reported the allegations on Sunday, claiming that Doutaghi is a member of the international Samidoun network, or Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network. The U.S Department of the Treasury identified Samidoun as a terrorist group and “sham charity” that is a fundraising front for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorist organization. The Canadian government also listed Samidoun under its listed terrorist entities on Oct. 11, 2024.

The Jewish Onliner linked an article from Samidoun that mentions Doutaghi as a speaker at a film screening in July 2022, held by the organization in Tehran, Iran. The article describes Doutaghi as a doctoral student of international law and a member of the international Samidoun Network.

The Jewish Onliner also alleged that Doutaghi has connections to the Iranian state-owned news outlet, Press TV, which has been sanctioned by the U.S. Government.

“We take these allegations extremely seriously and immediately opened an investigation into the matter to ascertain the facts,” the Law School spokesperson wrote to the News.

The News was unable to independently verify the validity of the allegations, and the Law School declined to comment further on their investigative process.

At Yale Law School, Doutaghi has worked as an associate research scholar and a deputy director of the Law and Political Economy Project since September 2023. Before serving as an associate research scholar at Yale, Doutaghi taught topics including social justice and international human rights at Carleton University.

The Law School spokesperson said that Doutaghi’s “short-term” position would expire next month.

“Until then, she has been placed on an immediate administrative leave pending the outcome of this investigation,” the spokesperson wrote.

On Tuesday evening, Doutaghi’s official profile on the Law School’s website was taken down. The Law School spokesperson confirmed the profile page was taken down as a result of putting Doutaghi on administrative leave.

The News could not reach Doutaghi for comment. As of Tuesday, her LinkedIn page was no longer available.

Yale Law School was founded in 1824.

The post YLS places research scholar on “immediate administrative leave” over alleged ties to terrorist organization appeared first on Yale Daily News.

“All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests,” Trump posted on social media. “Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on the crime, arrested. NO MASKS!”

Per Reuters, a spokesperson for Trump did not respond on how the White House would define an “illegal protest” or how the government would imprison the identified protesters.

When reached by the News for comment, a University spokesperson wrote that Yale “remains committed to its mission, to the principles of free expression and academic excellence, and to supporting the community” but did not refer specifically to the President’s threats regarding protesters.

The University spokesperson also directed the News to a Jan. 28 statement released by University President Maurie McInnis and Provost Scott Strobel on potential changes coming from the federal government.

A spokesperson for Yale’s pro-Palestinian Sumud Coalition wrote that Trump’s threats won’t stop their activism. 

“Trump wants to shut down student speech because he recognizes the power of our movement, but we won’t be deterred from standing in solidarity with Palestine,” the spokesperson said. 

Last spring, pro-Palestinian students organized protests and rallies across Yale’s campus, calling for Yale to disclose its investments and divest from ​​weapons manufacturing related to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Protesters set up encampments on Beinecke Plaza and then Cross Campus.

In the culmination of the first encampment, 46 students were arrested, including two international students. The protesters faced various charges, including criminal trespassing, disorderly conduct and criminal mischief. Several cases were subsequently resolved, and 27 cases were officially dismissed in a court hearing on Oct. 31.

Trump has previously threatened to deport international students involved with campus protests. He signed an executive order on Wednesday, Jan. 29, which gives agencies 60 days to outline plans that will combat antisemitism on college campuses. A fact sheet for the order calls for revoking visas and deporting “Hamas sympathizers.”

A statement on March 3 from the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S General Services Administration announced a “comprehensive review” of Columbia University’s federal contracts and grants in light of ongoing investigations for potential violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

The review stands amidst ongoing investigations at five universities where antisemitic incidents have been reported.

Trump is in his second term as President.

The post Trump threatens to jail or deport students, freeze funding for universities for “illegal protests” appeared first on Yale Daily News.

The plaintiff, a French entrepreneur and investor living in Texas, was enrolled in a 22-month program at the School of Management for individuals already in business leadership roles, typically completed through Friday and Saturday classes on alternating weekends. The plaintiff, who filed the case pseudonymously as John Doe, began the program in July 2023 and intended to graduate this spring.

But after being investigated for accused use of generative artificial intelligence on a final exam last spring, the plaintiff was suspended for a year from the School of Management for “not being forthcoming” to the Honor Committee evaluating his disciplinary circumstances. The Honor Committee later determined that the plaintiff had violated the rules of the exam and gave him a failing grade for that class.

“Plaintiff will no longer be able to graduate from his EMBA program with his classmates, nor will he finish in the top of his class as was his trajectory,” the lawsuit claims. “Delaying Plaintiff’s graduation will remove his ability to proudly earn this once-in-a-lifetime distinction.”

The lawsuit argues that the student was discriminated against by his professors and Honor Committee members based on his national origin and “non-native English speaker/writer status.” 

On Friday, Yale objected to the plaintiff’s request to be kept anonymous. Lawyers for the University pointed out that the complaint included “a litany of specific information that identifies Plaintiff through simple Google searches.” Yale’s lawyers also wrote that the plaintiff’s identity would be necessary for an “independent assessment” of the lawsuit’s allegations, as they claimed that the plaintiff was previously accused of misappropriating funds from a nonprofit.  

Final exam flagged for AI in June 2024

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff’s final exam paper in his “Sourcing and Managing Funds” course was flagged and referred to the Honor Committee for “further investigation,” specifically into improper use of AI.

K. Geert Rouwenhorst, the plaintiff’s professor, wrote in his referral letter that a teaching assistant “flagged an exam that appeared unusually long and elaborate in formatting in answering the questions,” according to the lawsuit. Rouwehorst also wrote that three of the essay question answers “scored high on the likelihood of being AI generated using ChatGPTZero” — a free AI detector tool — though he did not run the entire exam through the software.

“Plaintiff is a highly educated and accomplished professional,” the complaint claimed. “It is not ‘unusual’ that his writing on his final exam would be ‘long and elaborate,’ or that it would have ‘near perfect punctuation and grammar.’”

The plaintiff learned of the investigation into his exam the next day from an email by Wendy Tsung, the EMBA program’s assistant dean, informing him that he had an “Incomplete” grade in Rouwenhorst’s course. He then learned from Rouwenhorst that the reason for the grade was that his final exam was flagged for possible AI use.

The plaintiff met with Tsung and then-Dean of Students Sherilyn Scully on July 24, 2024. The lawsuit alleges that at that meeting, Scully “made multiple attempts to coerce Plaintiff into making a false confession of violating the Honor Code” — by asking him whether he used a tool like Grammarly on the exam, consulted with other students or teaching assistants or was confused about the rules for the exam. The student answered no on each occasion, the suit claims.

According to the lawsuit, Scully then suggested to the plaintiff that “his F1 visa could be revoked, and he could be deported, as a result of the Honor Committee investigation.” The plaintiff informed her that he was not in the United States on an F1 visa.

Plaintiff alleges Honor Committee misconduct

After corresponding with the head of the Honor Committee throughout August, the plaintiff was formally notified of the Honor Code charge against him.

Though the School of Management’s Honor Code requires the University to reveal to an accused student the identities of the Honor Committee members, the plaintiff alleged that he did not know of his committee’s composition until his Nov. 8 hearing.

On Oct. 14, the plaintiff received 16 documents that the committee planned to use as evidence in its evaluation — documents the plaintiff had requested throughout the summer. Those documents revealed to the plaintiff that a new charge had been introduced — AI use on a separate exam in a different class.

On Oct. 30, the plaintiff contacted Scott Aaronson, a Texas-based AI expert, to ask about the reliability of tools like GPTZero. According to Aaronson, the plaintiff explicitly stated in his email that he did not use AI on the exam when describing his situation.

“It is mathematically impossible for any tool to detect AI use at 100 percent probability,” Aaronson told the News, describing the information he conveyed to the plaintiff. Aaronson said that GPTZero, in particular, could not be certain of AI use but could detect the probability of AI use “in the high 90s.” 

The plaintiff submitted his correspondence with Aaronson — one email each — to the Honor Committee at his Nov. 8 hearing. He also submitted GPTZero scans of academic papers from Yale scholars, including former University President Peter Salovey, to demonstrate that the detector tool erroneously flagged original text as probably AI-generated, the suit described.

At the hearing, the committee asked the plaintiff for the Apple Pages files used to produce the PDF files submitted for the two flagged exams, which he did after the hearing concluded. Two hours later, after the plaintiff left campus, Tsung asked him to meet with the committee imminently, and to bring his personal laptop with him. The plaintiff told Tsung he would not be available to meet that day.

Three hours later, the plaintiff received a letter from the committee chair informing him that the Honor Committee had found him liable for a charge of  “not being forthcoming to the Honor Committee” and imposed a penalty of a one-year suspension, the lawsuit claims.

Shyam Sunder, a retired School of Management professor who served on the Honor Committee until his retirement in 2021, affirmed that the committee does impose penalties for the charge of “not being forthcoming” but declined to comment on specific cases.

“My recollection is that for people who come and put everything before the committee, our committee gives them the benefit of being forthcoming,” Sunder said.

On Nov. 15, the plaintiff appealed his one-year suspension penalty to the Faculty Review Board, a body of three professors headed by Anjani Jain, deputy dean for academic programs, who can review the severity of Honor Committee-imposed consequences. On Nov. 19, Jain notified him that the board denied his appeal and requested that the Honor Committee “continue deliberating” on a charge of “violation of the examination rules” — a broader charge than the AI use charge of which the plaintiff was originally notified, the suit states. Jain allegedly also asked the plaintiff’s professor to withhold the plaintiff’s grade in his course.

Jain did not respond to questions about the alleged communication, and a University spokesperson declined to comment.

On Nov. 21, the plaintiff received a letter from the committee notifying him that he was found to have violated the rules of the “Sourcing and Managing Funds” final exam and that he would receive a grade of F in that class. When he tried to appeal that penalty to the Faculty Review Board, he was again denied.

Sunder noted that grade penalties and suspensions are the most frequent penalties imposed by the committee, but that the length of suspensions could vary from a week to a year.

The student is suing the University, its Board of Trustees and multiple administrators and faculty members for breach of contract, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, discrimination based on national origin, retaliation for complaint of discrimination and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff repeatedly reiterated his belief that he was discriminated against by his professors, Honor Committee members and Faculty Review Board members based on his national origin and “non-native English speaker/writer status.”

The suit asks for the plaintiff to be awarded financial damages “in an amount to be determined at trial” and for his suspension and failing grade to be reversed and removed from his academic record.

Yale objects to anonymity request

In the Feb. 21 response filed by the Yale defendants, lawyers argued that the plaintiff’s name was easily findable based on details included in the complaint and that his identity was a necessary fact in the case because of the plaintiff’s prior “dishonest” actions.

In particular, Yale’s lawyers claimed that the plaintiff was publicly accused of misappropriating $18,000 when he was the president of a Texas youth leadership development nonprofit in 2016. The nonprofit posted on Facebook about the plaintiff’s removal from his office, and the plaintiff commented on the post using his personal account, calling the allegations “completely inaccurate” and “false.”

In 2020, the defendants claim, a company alleged that the plaintiff made “false representations” to induce them to enter into a business relationship with certain entities.

Yale’s lawyers further asserted that anonymity is not appropriate for academic misconduct cases, citing precedent from previous cases.

The case was filed with the U.S. District Court, and it was assigned to a judge in Bridgeport.

The post SOM student sues Yale, alleges wrongful suspension over AI use appeared first on Yale Daily News.

In honor of the 50th anniversary of the Woodward Report, panelists came together in the Sterling Law Building on Friday, Feb. 14. The conference, “Revisiting the Woodward Report: Free Expression on College Campuses,” reflected on the report’s legacy, its original goals and the role of free speech in higher education.

The conference began with remarks from Law School Dean Heather Gerken and a surprise appearance from University President Maurie McInnis, who reflected on the Woodward Report’s enduring legacy at Yale.

“The research and teaching that take place at the Law School, and many other parts of our campus, demonstrate that Yale isn’t merely marking a landmark anniversary for the Woodward Report, but is recommitting ourselves anew to its core values,” said McInnis.

In her opening remarks, Gerken highlighted the central importance of free speech to the Law School’s mission. She noted that the Law School encourages the ability to “question everything” by pushing students in classroom discussion to make the best case for positions they might oppose. 

Though the conference was specifically in honor of the new Center for Academic Freedom and Free Speech and the 50th anniversary of the Woodward Report, Gerken highlighted that free speech has been of constant importance, noting the protection of speaking freely as one of her priorities throughout her tenure as dean.

“Without the Woodward Report’s protections for free speech and academic freedom, our students would never acquire the scholar’s superpower — the ability to question everything,” said Gerken.

McInnis also expressed how “fortunate” Yale was to have Professor Keith Whittington as the center’s inaugural director, highlighting his expertise in constitutional theory and leadership.

Whittington expressed his gratitude toward Gerken and the Law School for their enthusiasm and support in launching the new center.

“The 50th anniversary of the Woodward Report is a very happy coincidence for being able to launch the center,” said Whittington. “It’s a useful and important opportunity to use the report as a vehicle for talking through important issues about free speech and free expression on campus, as well as their particular legacy here at Yale.”

Whittington then expanded on the long-term significance of the Woodward Report’s inclusion of “soaring rhetoric” about the importance of free expression on campuses and the relationship between free speech and the established mission of the University.

The first panel featured remarks from scholars, practicing attorneys and Yale Law professors, who discussed the difference between free speech and academic freedom in the context of the University’s current landscape.

Sterling Professor of Law and Former Dean of Yale Law School Robert Post emphasized the need for Yale to amend its governing documents to better serve what he views as the University’s “twin missions of research and of teaching” by promoting academic freedom, which he views as having a “tiny different structure” from the freedom of speech.

“Here at Yale, we have no particular account of academic freedom,” said Post. “In fact, if you look at our documents to say, ‘Where [is] our protection for academic freedom,’ we don’t have it.”

Law professor Kate Stith, a fellow panelist, agreed with Post that the Woodward Report is indeed “not about academic free speech.”

Stith noted a shift from prioritizing free speech and scholarship to incorporating social and political justice goals on Yale’s campus.

The second panel featured remarks from leading academics visiting from other universities, including Harvard Law professor Randall Kennedy, University of Pennsylvania professor Sigal Ben-Porath, University of Richmond President emeritus Ronald Crutcher and Carleton College professor Amna Khalid.

The panel debated whether universities should be mandated to teach citizenship and leadership for the public good. The panel discussed the idea of students advocating for the “disinvitation” of speakers from campus events.

The conference was closed with a speech by Judge James C. Ho of the U.S Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In his remarks, Ho emphasized the importance of respecting people who hold different viewpoints.

“We could approach disagreement with a presumption of good faith, with the assumption that there’s always something we can learn from our fellow man,” Ho said.

Ho added that freedom of speech is not a protection of “easy” speech that echoes commonly held beliefs. Rather, he highlighted that freedom of speech protects “uncomfortable” speech that goes against the majority opinion.

In 2022, Ho called for a boycott of hiring law clerks from Yale Law School, citing the University’s alleged tolerance for “cancel culture.” Since announcing this position, Ho has been on Yale’s campus for various events, such as one hosted by the Buckley Institute.

“My goal is that people not feel like second-class citizens because of the viewpoints they hold,” Ho told the News.

The Center for Academic Freedom and Free Speech was launched in the fall.

The post Yale Law conference reaffirms commitment to campus free speech, academic freedom appeared first on Yale Daily News.