Ben Eidelson

Based on the @theharvardcrimson.bsky.social's new reporting, Harvard's commitment to scrubbing discussion of race from the admissions process (left) appears to go far beyond what the conservative Supreme Court majority actually required in SFFA (right).

Check out the latest version of Case Viewer on the App Store — now with detailed AI annotations, on iPhone, iPad, and macOS

apps.apple.com/app/apple-st...

Kagan’s short dissent is unanswerable.

Case Viewer is one of those tools you didn't know you needed. Apple-only for now, but it brings a simple, clean interface to reading case law, and it's finally out of beta!

We're proud to have our APIs and data integrated into the tool and we encourage folks to give it a try!

Case Viewer, my quirky side project of building my ideal legal search & reading app, has come a long way. With lots of help, it's grown into the best way to find & read cases on a Mac, iPhone, or iPad. Check it out or download on the App Store below. And follow @CaseViewerApp for updates!

Trump Administration Live Updates: President’s Order on Burning Flag Reveals Its Own Limits

Even with its professed limits, Trump’s flag-burning order appears blatantly unconstitutional. “Prosecute disfavored acts of expression insofar as they also constitute criminal acts under some content-neutral law” is not content-neutral. @charliesavage.bsky.social

www.nytimes.com/live/2025/08...

When you’re so busy crowing about your political motivations that you forget to pretend you did it for the Jews.

I have learned a ton from engaging across differences with Sherif and this essay is a wonderful example. Highly recommended!

Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism, and Title VI: A Guide for the Perplexed - Harvard Law Review The past eighteen months have seen an unprecedented wave of claims by public officials and private plaintiffs that universities are violating their legal obligations...

The op-ed draws on my co-authored article on "Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism, and Title VI" with @hellmandeborah.bsky.social in the Harvard Law Review Forum, available here: harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-13... (3/3)

Most glaringly, it treats speech acts (like putting an anti-Israel sign on your laptop) as discrimination against a group if they disproportionately _affect_ that group—no intent needed. This is a form of disparate impact, a linchpin of civil rights that Trump has pronounced unconstitutional. (2/3)

Trump goes ‘woke’ in report on antisemitism at Harvard - The Boston Globe What is most striking is the brazen hypocrisy — one might even say chutzpah — of the Trump lawyers’ arguments.

As I explain in this @bostonglobe.com op-ed, the new Trump ruling on antisemitism at Harvard is deeply ironic—it quietly embraces ideas about anti-discrimination law that the administration has repudiated for civil rights claims by every other group. (1/3)

www.bostonglobe.com/2025/07/03/o...

P.S. if somehow I missed what they're actually citing there, I will delete this. But I looked pretty hard before posting this and I really don't see it.

Is it possible OCR turned “As a Muslim woman who wears hijab, I have been spat on and harassed in multiple places on campus” into "reports of Jewish and Israeli students being spit on in the face for wearing a yarmulke"??

If so, that pretty well sums up the seriousness of this investigation. (3/3)

But the only mention of spitting in that part of the report is a complaint by a "Muslim woman who wears hijab." And there are no complaints of spitting anywhere else in the report either (though there's another mention of "spitting at pro-Palestinian demonstrators"). (2/3)

A stunning and telling error in the Title VI "notice of violation" against Harvard:

One of the document's most striking claims is that Harvard ignored "reports of Jewish and Israeli students being spit on in the face for wearing a yarmulke." This is repeated in their letter & in news coverage.(1/3)

Reading the Title VI "notice of violation" against Harvard makes stark that, to a large extent, the target is not antisemitism (not even trumped up claims of antisemitism) but protests. Where in these descriptions of alleged misconduct is the discrimination against Jewish (or Israeli) students?

www.hhs.gov/sites/defaul...

Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism, and Title VI: A Guide for the Perplexed - Harvard Law Review The past eighteen months have seen an unprecedented wave of claims by public officials and private plaintiffs that universities are violating their legal obligations...

But if the administration thinks "faculty members from the Harvard Law School ... are presumably familiar with legal evidentiary burdens of proof," they might be interested in one such faculty member's explanation of why these Title VI claims are very dubious: harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-13...

There is much that's far-fetched and remarkable about Trump admin's new Title VI finding against Harvard. One example is this bizarre bit about why claims in Harvard's antisemitism report can be treated as evidence—despite the task force's explanation that it 'did not require ... evidence'! (1/2)

This Ogles letter is deranged and incompetent on many levels. The Supreme Court addressed the standard for denaturalization in a unanimous opinion less than a decade ago and every one of the many elements it required is absent. Reporters covering this stunt should tell their readers as much.

"Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism, and Title VI: A Guide for the Perplexed" is now out: tinyurl.com/3wpvbnzu

Thanks to HLR editors for fast & diligent editing and to the many who've engaged with us since we posted the draft. And of course to @hellmandeborah.bsky.social for another great collaboration.

Some takeaways from our new article on Title VI and antisemitism/antizionism (cc @hellmandeborah.bsky.social) in this @chronicle.com Q&A with @shenandoahkate.bsky.social. Full paper: ssrn.com/abstract=527...

Discrimination cases unravel as Trump scraps core civil rights tenet The administration is dismissing cases and unwinding settlements built on "disparate impact," which holds that even neutral policies can lead to biased outcomes.

Trump's renunciation of disparate impact is ironic: As @hellmandeborah.bsky.social and I explain in new paper, the disparate impact regulation is likely essential to any plausible Title VI theory re: campus antisemitism. Reporters should ask if they're making an exception!

ssrn.com/abstract=527...

I appreciate what @beidelson.bsky.social & @hellmandeborah.bsky.social have accomplished here: a concise and thoughtful guide to the reach of Title VI when it comes to antisemitism and speech about Israel.

The Trump Administration's attacks on universities, supposedly regarding antisemitism, are...

These issues are discussed in section 1 of the paper if you’re interested.

Very important guide for navigating the complexities here, including especially the nature of "deliberate indifference" in the context of a deeply contested mix of values and rights at stake.

New to Bluesky, and posting a new paper: "Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism, and Title VI: A Guide for the Perplexed" -- with @beidelson.bsky.social.

Forthcoming in Harv. L. Rev. Forum in June. (papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....).

A thread follows.

Thanks to many colleagues (incl. @casssunstein.bsky.social, @micahschwartzman.bsky.social, @nikobowie.bsky.social, @ryandoerfler.bsky.social, @noahfeldman.bsky.social, @sherifgirgis.bsky.social) for helpful conversations and to @hellmandeborah.bsky.social for another very rewarding collaboration!

Bottom line: colleges should of course tackle hate & discrimination, but the Title VI claims are much weaker than recent discussion (& media coverage) would suggest.

More details in the paper (which is written to be of readable length!): ssrn.com/abstract=5271044