61 Fall 2026 even though “federal anti-discrimination laws can hear bigotry sung in the whistle register,”32 the District Court’s novel standard for pleading animus deafens federal civil rights laws to bigotry even when conspirators howl it at the top of their lungs. Finally, the District Court’s holding that people who are perceived to be Jews or supporters of Jews cannot be members of a protected class turns the statute’s animus requirement on its head. Section 1985(3) does not require that racist or antisemitic conspirators be right about the race or beliefs of their victims, only that the conspirators act out of invidious animus. In short, unless reversed on appeal, the opinion below would not only eviscerate the Ku Klux Klan Act but substantially weaken other civil rights laws requiring proof of discriminatory intent. Defending Jewish Students and Faculty Sued or Subjected to Retaliatory Disciplinary Proceedings In March 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a 100-page discrimination complaint filed by Aneesa Johnson, whom Georgetown University hired in August 2023 as assistant director of academic and faculty affairs at its School of Foreign Service. Johnson sued for $10 million in damages after the university fired her for a series of antisemitic posts on social media. Our client was Rachel Wolff, a Jewish dual-degree student at the Georgetown foreign service and law schools, who researched Johnson after she was hired and found, via a profile from the watchdog Canary Mission, that Johnson had posted a series of virulent, unhinged antisemitic statements.33 Alarmed at what her Google search turned up, Wolff took to Twitter herself and posted screenshots of Johnson’s Tweets, retrieved from Canary Mission, with some added commentary: “Not to be outdone by Harvard, Georgetown just hired this antisemite to be the ‘primary point of contact’ for all Foreign Service Students on everything academic.” Wolff’s Tweet went viral, garnering over a million views. She followed up with additional posts, calling SFS and Georgetown “shameful” for their hiring decision. Johnson was suspended and then fired. Johnson sued Georgetown for wrongful termination and defamation, among other causes of action, and added Wolff and others. We moved to dismiss the complaint for targeting protected speech and expression on matters of public concern. The Court agreed that the suit improperly attacked Wolff’s First Amendment right to address content that was “an affront to her Jewish identity, especially in the immediate aftermath of the October 7 attack.” The dismissal order stressed the strong public interest in protecting speech on university hiring decisions and warned that allowing the suit would “undoubtedly chill campus speech” and undercut the “marketplace of ideas.”34 The Court held that Wolff’s behavior is a far cry from wrongful or improper. The nature of her conduct was not unusual: She complained to other social media users about an issue that upset her, though her posts did go viral along the way. Wolff’s motive was clear from the face of the complaint: She perceived Johnson’s online activity as an affront to her Jewish identity, especially in the immediate aftermath of the October 7 attack, and publicly vented her objection to Georgetown placing Johnson in a position of responsibility vis-à-vis Jewish (and other) students.35 The Court also ruled that though there may have been less provocative means of voicing her opinion, she was entitled to do so the way she did. Relatedly, Wolff’s individual interest in speaking out had a constitutional valence, which dovetails with the societal interest in protecting her freedom of speech, especially on a matter of public concern like an elite university’s hiring decisions. After all, “in public debate [we] must tolerate insulting . . . speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.”36 32. Gartenberg v. Cooper Union for the Advancement of Sci. & Art, 765 F. Supp. 3d 245, 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (internal citations omitted). 33. Aneesa Johnson, Canary Mission, available at https://canarymission.org/individual/Aneesa_Johnson 34. Johnson v. Georgetown Univ., No. 25-CV-1540 (CRC), 2026 WL 879522, at *30 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2026). 35. Id. 36. Id.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=