Filed Date: March 13, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged Columbia University’s disclosure of student disciplinary records and compliance with federal government demands aimed at suppressing pro-Palestine speech and political advocacy on campus. On March 13, 2025, Columbia students Mahmoud Khalil and seven pseudonymous co-plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Columbia University, university trustees, and multiple federal government defendants, including the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and federal executive officials. The plaintiffs were represented by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Dratel & Lewis, and private counsel.
The case was assigned to Judge Arun Subramanian.
The lawsuit arose from events following the escalation of Israeli–Palestinian conflict starting in October 2023, which triggered widespread campus protests. In response, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce initiated an investigation into Columbia, characterizing pro-Palestine student speech as antisemitic. Starting February 12, 2024, the Committee began pressuring Columbia through multiple letters and subpoenas demanding student disciplinary records from protests, sit-ins, and other expressive activities. The Committee specifically targeted eleven expressive incidents, including the peaceful "Hind’s House" art exhibition and various campus protests critical of Israel. Plaintiffs alleged that these actions intended to intimidate Columbia into harshly disciplining pro-Palestine students and chilling campus speech critical of Israel.
Concurrently, starting March 2025, multiple federal agencies, including the Department of Education, Department of Justice, and Department of Health and Human Services, threatened to terminate approximately $400 million in federal funding to Columbia. The agencies announced nine "preconditions" Columbia had to satisfy before funding negotiations could resume, including the imposition of a definition of antisemitism based on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) standards, and requiring student protesters to identify themselves at all campus events. On March 21, Columbia formally adopted the government’s demands, including a viewpoint-specific antisemitism definition and a policy requiring protesters to identify themselves to campus authorities, sparking significant student and faculty backlash.
Plaintiffs alleged violations of the First Amendment, privacy rights, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They argued that the Committee’s demands were illegitimate and retaliatory, unlawfully abridging protected speech and associational rights. Plaintiffs further claimed that the federal agencies’ threats to cut Columbia’s funding without adhering to Title VI statutory procedures constituted unlawful coercion and jawboning, violating both the APA and constitutional protections. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to halt Columbia’s disclosure of disciplinary records and enjoin Columbia’s further compliance with government demands, along with a declaratory judgment invalidating the new antisemitism definition and protest-identification policies.
On March 20, Judge Subramanian temporarily restrained Columbia from providing additional student records to Congress. However, on April 4, the court denied plaintiffs’ initial motion for preliminary injunction without prejudice, citing deficiencies in standing and traceability of harm. 2025 WL 1019425. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint on April 18, addressing the court’s concerns and renewing their motion for preliminary injunction on June 20. They sought an order reversing Columbia’s new antisemitism definition, halting further disclosures, and restoring Columbia’s federal funding.
On May 14, Judge Subramanian approved a stipulated protective order limiting access to sensitive student information in the proceedings. Additionally, the Congressional defendants moved to dismiss on May 23, asserting immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause and lack of standing. On June 20, plaintiffs opposed the Congressional defendants’ motion to dismiss, arguing the investigation exceeded legitimate legislative purposes and unconstitutionally targeted protected speech. That motion remained pending.
As of October 2025, the case remained pending. Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for preliminary injunction and Congressional defendants’ motion to dismiss were awaiting decision.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Nicole Brigstock (4/21/2025)
Ben Hefter (6/19/2025)
Brian Chen (7/29/2025)
Jack Moore (10/23/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69733020/parties/khalil-v-the-trustees-of-columbia-university-in-the-city-of-new-york/
Abbas, Gadeir Ibrahim (New York)
Aftab, Maria Kari (New York)
Agarwala, Lamya (New York)
Anderson, Trisha Beth (New York)
Ahamed, Sabiya (New York)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69733020/khalil-v-the-trustees-of-columbia-university-in-the-city-of-new-york/
Last updated Feb. 2, 2026, 12:44 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 13, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Eight students at Columbia University who are challenging a congressional request for student disciplinary records related to pro-Palestinian campus protests.
Attorney Organizations:
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
United States of America, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Southern District of New York 1:25-cv-02079
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.: