Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
NEW: CAIR asks a judge to order Columbia to delay its planned response today to a Senate committee ...
Joshua J. Friedman
@joshuajfriedman.com
NEW: CAIR asks a judge to order Columbia to delay its planned response today to a Senate committee about pro-Palestinian campus activism, suggesting that it doesn't trust Columbia's claim that it won't disclose student records or identities. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.638553/gov.uscourts.nysd.638553.57.0.pdf
Hon. Judge Subramanian:
Plaintiffs submit this letter requesting that the Court enforce its Dkt. 54 Order and require Columbia Defendants to provide thirty days' notice in advance of a disclosure of information campus officials intend to make to Congress today-this time a Senate Committee requesting extensive records and information about students and their associations.
In a letter filed yesterday evening, Columbia Defendants informed Plaintiffs' counsel and the Court that they intend to provide further information and records to a Senate Committee's March 26th request. Exhibit A - March 26 Letter. The University Defendants intend to do so today, the deadline set out by the letter. Id. Plaintiffs believe, however, that the University Defendants' planned production is subject to the Court's thirty-day notice requirement. Dkt. 54 {requiring that campus officials "must advise the plaintiffs and Court of their intended production" and must do so "at least thirty days before furnishing to Congress any student records"}.
The letter demands "student records" repeatedly-information and records about specific events organized by students, about a specific student group that Plaintiffs have been associated with and with which they share a viewpoint, about student connections with community groups. These are student records that the Senate Committee is seeking.
Columbia Defendants submit that their response to the letter "will not include any student records, nor furnish any students' identities in records already produced" and thus does "not fall within the Court's Order." But Plaintiffs are concerned that the University Defendants are using an implausibly narrow definition of "student records" to skirt this Court's order. Because of this, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court require the University Defendants to "advise the plaintiffs and Court of their intended production" in line with this Court's April 4th order. See Dkt. 54.
ALT
That is especially appropriate here for two reasons.
First, the Senate Committee has only sent a letter. The University Defendants are under no legal compulsion to immediately respond, and a short delay that gives the parties the opportunity to litigate the lawfulness of Columbia University's behavior will not create prejudice. Second, allowing the University Defendants to make a secret production to the Senate Committee now, without any notice to the Court or to opposing counsel, will establish an easy workaround to the Court's April 4th Order.
The Court established this notice requirement "to give plaintiffs the opportunity to seek timely relief if necessary." Dkt. 54. Plaintiffs intend to argue that the University Defendants' response to the Senate Committee's request is unlawful and need time to be able to present that argument to the Court.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enforce its April 4th order against Defendants and direct the University Defendants to provide notice to Plaintiffs and the Court of what campus officials intend to disclose. The University Defendants should at least share the correspondence, table of contents, of other accounts of the disclosure with the Court and Plaintiffs to the extent permitted and appropriate or, if this court so requires, hears us on the issue.
April 9, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gadeir Abbas
Gadeir Abbas
Deputy National Litigation Director
CAIR Legal Defense Fund
/s/ Amy Greet
Amy E. Greer (NY 5910179)
Dratel & Lewis
/s/ Lamya Agarwala
Lamya Agarwala
Council on American-Islamic Relations -
New York
/s/ Jonathan Wallace
Jonathan Wallace
Counsel for Plaintiffs
ALT
April 9, 2025 at 3:26 PM
@joshuajfriedman.com
NEW: CAIR asks a judge to order Columbia to delay its planned response today to a Senate committee about pro-Palestinian campus activism, suggesting that it doesn't trust Columbia's claim that it won't disclose student records or identities. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.638553/gov.uscourts.nysd.638553.57.0.pdf
Hon. Judge Subramanian:
Plaintiffs submit this letter requesting that the Court enforce its Dkt. 54 Order and require Columbia Defendants to provide thirty days' notice in advance of a disclosure of information campus officials intend to make to Congress today-this time a Senate Committee requesting extensive records and information about students and their associations.
In a letter filed yesterday evening, Columbia Defendants informed Plaintiffs' counsel and the Court that they intend to provide further information and records to a Senate Committee's March 26th request. Exhibit A - March 26 Letter. The University Defendants intend to do so today, the deadline set out by the letter. Id. Plaintiffs believe, however, that the University Defendants' planned production is subject to the Court's thirty-day notice requirement. Dkt. 54 {requiring that campus officials "must advise the plaintiffs and Court of their intended production" and must do so "at least thirty days before furnishing to Congress any student records"}.
The letter demands "student records" repeatedly-information and records about specific events organized by students, about a specific student group that Plaintiffs have been associated with and with which they share a viewpoint, about student connections with community groups. These are student records that the Senate Committee is seeking.
Columbia Defendants submit that their response to the letter "will not include any student records, nor furnish any students' identities in records already produced" and thus does "not fall within the Court's Order." But Plaintiffs are concerned that the University Defendants are using an implausibly narrow definition of "student records" to skirt this Court's order. Because of this, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court require the University Defendants to "advise the plaintiffs and Court of their intended production" in line with this Court's April 4th order. See Dkt. 54.
ALT
That is especially appropriate here for two reasons.
First, the Senate Committee has only sent a letter. The University Defendants are under no legal compulsion to immediately respond, and a short delay that gives the parties the opportunity to litigate the lawfulness of Columbia University's behavior will not create prejudice. Second, allowing the University Defendants to make a secret production to the Senate Committee now, without any notice to the Court or to opposing counsel, will establish an easy workaround to the Court's April 4th Order.
The Court established this notice requirement "to give plaintiffs the opportunity to seek timely relief if necessary." Dkt. 54. Plaintiffs intend to argue that the University Defendants' response to the Senate Committee's request is unlawful and need time to be able to present that argument to the Court.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enforce its April 4th order against Defendants and direct the University Defendants to provide notice to Plaintiffs and the Court of what campus officials intend to disclose. The University Defendants should at least share the correspondence, table of contents, of other accounts of the disclosure with the Court and Plaintiffs to the extent permitted and appropriate or, if this court so requires, hears us on the issue.
April 9, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gadeir Abbas
Gadeir Abbas
Deputy National Litigation Director
CAIR Legal Defense Fund
/s/ Amy Greet
Amy E. Greer (NY 5910179)
Dratel & Lewis
/s/ Lamya Agarwala
Lamya Agarwala
Council on American-Islamic Relations -
New York
/s/ Jonathan Wallace
Jonathan Wallace
Counsel for Plaintiffs
ALT
April 9, 2025 at 3:26 PM
https://bsky.app/profile/joshuajfriedman.com/post/3lmfpt7wjfk2y
Joshua J. Friedman
[link:April 9, 2025 at 3:27 PM
[link:April 9, 2025 at 3:27 PM
https://bsky.app/profile/joshuajfriedman.com|@joshuajfriedman.com]
From last night:
Joshua J. Friedman [link:April 9, 2025 at 3:27 PM
https://bsky.app/profile/joshuajfriedman.com|@joshuajfriedman.com]
·
17h
NEW: Columbia tells a federal judge that it owes answers to a Senate committee tomorrow (on pro-Palestinian activism)—but that its responses "will not include any student records, nor furnish any students’ identities in records already produced." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.638553/gov.uscourts.nysd.638553.56.0.pdf
Dear Judge Subramanian:
We write on behalf of Defendants Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York and Katrina Armstrong {together, "Columbia" or "the University"} in light of the Court's April 4, 2025 Order that, among other things, "[alt least thirty days before furnishing to Congress any student records, or students' identities in records already produced, the Columbia Defendants must advise the plaintiffs and Court of their intended production." ECF 54 at 2.
On March 26, 2025, the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions sent Columbia several requests for information, with responses due on April 9, 2025. In addition, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Workforce {the "House Committee"} has posed follow-up questions relating to the information that Columbia has provided in response to the Committee's February 13, 2025 letter to Columbia.
The information that Columbia is planning to provide in response to these Congressional inquiries will not include any student records, nor furnish any students' identities in records already produced. Accordingly, it is Columbia's understanding that these responses do not fall within the Court's Order and therefore do not trigger the Order's 30-day notice requirement. Columbia is nevertheless providing Plaintiffs and the Court with this update out of an abundance of caution.
Respectfully submitted,
Marshall L. Miller
ALT
April 9, 2025 at 3:27 PM
https://bsky.app/profile/joshuajfriedman.com/post/3lmfpu465g22y