Yes—as reflected in Stearns's application of the MIT precedent in the Segev case a few months ago:

The Trump administration's new Title VI complaint against Harvard is pervasively disingenuous in its factual allegations and exceedingly weak on the law. Fortunately the district court & court of appeals will be guided by the MIT precedent, which makes this pretty open & shut.

Recently the DOJ sued UCLA, arguing that we are such a "hotbed of campus antisemitism"—primarily because of pro-Palestinian student protests—that it's a hostile work environment for Jewish faculty and staff.

Well, many actual Jewish faculty and staff vehemently disagree and we wrote this letter:

@CaseViewerApp.bsky.social is much more impressed with Justice Gorsuch’s opinion in the tariffs case than I am…

Justice Department Sues University of California Over Antisemitism

Well, the DOJ has done it: they have filed a lawsuit against the University of California over antisemitism.

The complaint contains some falsehoods. But as someone who teaches and writes about Title VII, I'm equally struck by what the complaint doesn't say.

A few thoughts— 🧵

thank you!

Why anti-Zionism can't properly be treated as antisemitism for purposes of federal civil rights law, in ~ 2 minutes

Fixed link to written statement: securisync.intermedia.net/us2/s/folder...

Here's my opening statement at the civil rights commission hearing on campus antisemitism: www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ_k...

I thought it was a great discussion, with very important contributions from @genevievelakier.bsky.social and @dorfonlaw.bsky.social and apt questions from the commissioners.

I will be testifying at this panel also, along with @beidelson.bsky.social and Eugene Volokh. it should be interesting bc panelists are very far apart: Did the fed gov do too little to repress antisemitic student speech on campus after Oct 2023? or did it instead flagrantly violate 1A rights?

I’ll be testifying later this morning at a hearing of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission on campus antisemitism and the government’s response, on a panel with @genevievelakier.bsky.social, @dorfonlaw.bsky.social and others.

My statement: tinyurl.com/2t4z3yr2

And the livestream: tinyurl.com/jwnj8yb5

Update: I pointed out this tension with Trump DOJ guidance, and the EEOC Chair responded that it's "[e]mbarrassing that a Harvard Law professor has this degree of reading and listening comprehension issues." Ok then!

Isn't this message from the EEOC blatantly unconstitutional under Trump DOJ guidance? A nice exhibit for any university challenged over targeted recruitment or the like!

"Are you a white male who has experienced discrimination at work based on your race or sex? You may have a claim..."

It seems to me Congress should hold off on funding elaborate conspiracies to violate the Constitution.

Protecting Free Speech in K 12 & Beyond - January 15, 2026 YouTube video by Minuteman Media Network

P.S. The Bluesky embed above is the whole event, which is interesting & worthwhile, but the part I meant to link to is here and should now embed below ... : youtu.be/uNaTmCdzx94?...

And here are some of the slides, meant to capture what the hard question is, what I think the bottom line is, and why the IHRA definition, as it's been construed, is problematic:

Protecting Free Speech in K 12 & Beyond - January 15, 2026 YouTube video by Minuteman Media Network

I spoke yesterday at a local event here in MA about efforts to restrict criticism of Israel in K-12 schools and how schools should think about defining antisemitism in light of the 1st Amendment. Here's the video (~20 minutes): www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNaT...
CC @concernedjfaculty.bsky.social

The latest version of Case Viewer (www.caseviewer.app) includes a beta of an integrated chatbot that's pretty distinctive and genuinely useful (IMHO). It reads the case, answers directly based on the text, and scrolls you to the relevant passages. @caseviewerapp.bsky.social

New experiments with an integrated chat/assistant for Case Viewer. Still pretty amazing what LLMs can do, especially when they have full access to the relevant text

I am trying to keep most of the Case Viewer content on @CaseViewerApp.bsky.social, but I'm especially proud of this innovation and can't resist sharing it here too. The best way to read a judicial opinion, IMHO. (The magic is that none of the section titles below are actually in the opinion.)

Harvard Law professor launches Case Viewer app for easier access to court decisions - Harvard Law School Harvard Law Professor Ben Eidelson tapped into a childhood passion to build a tool for lawyers and law students.

A nice write up about Case Viewer, my legal browser app: hls.harvard.edu/today/harvar...

If you have an iPhone, iPad, or Mac and haven't tried it, you should! Learn more at www.caseviewer.app, follow @caseviewerapp.bsky.social, or download for free from app store: apps.apple.com/app/apple-st...

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...

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