A First Amendment case has put the Equality & Justice In-House Clinic at the center of one of the most consequential constitutional questions of the current moment.
At CUNY School of Law, students in the Equality & Justice In-House Clinic (EJIHC) have joined civil rights litigators to fight civil rights cases that will define this era— in real courtrooms, on shifting factual landscapes, with outcomes that are not yet known.
Since last August, the clinic’s inaugural cohort has been on the litigation team in Khalil v. Columbia University, a federal civil rights case alleging that a major research university suppressed protected political speech on its campus in response to government pressure. In March, a federal court allowed the case to move forward, finding that if Columbia University did indeed suppress speech at the behest of the federal government, it can be held to account for First Amendment violations alongside the government. The Court authorized discovery into communications between university leadership and federal officials to prove that is the case. The Court also blocked Columbia from sharing any further sensitive information about student protesters with Congress without prior notice.
The legal question at the center of Khalil is one courts are only beginning to confront: when the government leans on a private institution hard enough, does that institution’s compliance become a constitutional violation? The Court has said yes in a seminal ruling. That answer will matter well beyond this case.
For the students working on it, this case also marks the beginning of a career in impact litigation. Building a factual record in a case like this requires sustained attention: tracking the sequence of institutional decisions, connecting those decisions to external pressure, and constructing an evidentiary argument that holds together as the record develops.
The Student Experience
The clinic model at CUNY Law places students in litigation roles from the outset. In Khalil, that has meant drafting, researching, writing, and participating in strategy sessions alongside seasoned litigators. Students in this year’s clinic are contributing to the legal analysis that shapes this case.
Professor Zal K. Shroff, who directs the EJIHC, describes the scope of what students have taken on.
“Students have drafted written discovery requests to the Columbia and Trump Administration Defendants in this case, they have prepared letters to be filed with the Court, they have led meetings with co-counsel and clients, and they have provided critical legal analysis to shape a case at the cutting edge of financial coercion and the First Amendment.”
That is not training wheels education for law students. It is the core of what it takes to be a civil rights litigator—designing legal claims and assessing those facts as applied to the governing legal theories—while centering the needs of clients and organizers we advocate on behalf of.
“Khalil v. Columbia is a case of students representing students,” Shroff says. “It has given our CUNY Law students the opportunity to demonstrate their power as advocates and to hone their skills on a case that will define one of our most essential freedoms: the right to dissent. It also sends a clear message. Private institutions cannot sell away the Constitution for their own political convenience. Our students are learning that litigation is an exercise in accountability and power-building for those who need it most …and it is a battle. They leave our clinic with the knowledge and experience to embody that fight.”
The Legal Questions That Give the Case Its Weight
Courts have long recognized that private actors can, under certain conditions, be treated as state actors when they collaborate with the government to violate the U.S. Constitution. What remains genuinely unsettled is where that line sits when the pressure is indirect: when it arrives through funding threats, oversight investigations, or sustained political or regulatory campaigns designed to force private institutions to surrender.
Khalil pushes that question into new territory. The plaintiffs argue that Columbia’s response to federal pressure, including significant shifts in its campus speech policies, crossed the line from independent institutional judgment to active complicity in viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment. The court’s decision to allow the case to proceed means a federal judge has already credited that legal framework. The discovery phase will test whether the evidence bears it out.
Working on a case that is shaping core First Amendment doctrine as a law student in clinic is an education our students couldn’t get anywhere else.
Natasha Bunten describes the experience as one that drew together the core components of her legal training and tested them under real pressure. “Building concrete litigation skills through the Equality & Justice In-House Clinic has allowed our team to successfully fight for the rights of our clients locally while uplifting the national struggle to uphold the Constitutional rights of all people.”
Ivy Girdwood connects the work to the weight of what the clients themselves have faced: “Working on Khalil v. Columbia has been an honor and a transformative learning experience as a law student. This past year, our clinic group has represented student protesters going up against the Columbia Board of Trustees and the Trump Administration fighting for their First Amendment rights.” For Girdwood, who came to law school shaped in part by her own experiences in the student protest movement, the case carries particular meaning. “I am deeply proud of this case and our work thus far.”
A Clinical Program Built for Cases That Matter
The Equality & Justice In-House Clinic was designed as a training ground for civil rights litigators and to teach students to push past the perceived barriers of law to fight and win civil rights victories in today’s courts. This year, the clinic’s first doing direct client representation, students worked on active cases from the outset, on a docket that includes challenges to police misconduct, violations of the rights of incarcerated people, and violations of free speech rights, often in partnership with experienced co-counsel at civil rights organizations operating at a national level.
The EJIHC’s focus on Section 1983, the federal civil rights statute that serves as the primary mechanism for holding government actors accountable for constitutional violations, places students at the center of enforcement work where the technical demands are high and the stakes are immediate. Cases often involve multiple defendants, complex legal and procedural theories, and fast-paced discovery challenges.
Shroff’s approach to the clinic reflects the trajectory of his own practice. Before joining CUNY Law, he litigated impact cases across the country, challenging fines and fees schemes, conditions of confinement, voting rights violations, and poverty discrimination—while working to develop litigation in the service of broader social justice campaigns led by organizers. That orientation carries into the classroom. He asks his students to think beyond the courtroom: how a case can amplify the goals of organizers, how it can uplift social science research, how it can create a platform for impacted people to share their lived experiences, and how it fits into a longer arc of advocacy.
In Khalil, those questions have real and present stakes. The case has already drawn national attention and its next phase will likely draw more.
Experiences of Co-Counsel from the Private Civil Rights Bar
The EJIHC Clinic has also carved a strategic role for itself in joining the kinds of civil rights cases that most need additional resources and support to be successful—seeking to help close the ever-increasing gap of pro bono civil rights counsel across the United States relative to community need. That impact has been felt by several of the civil rights firms that EJIHC has partnered with this year:
Amy Greer, from the law firm of Dratel & Lewis, said: “Working with the EJIHC in its inaugural year has been an honor and privilege. Professor Shroff and the clinic students brought to this case rigor, creativity, compassion for clients (and colleagues), and critical expertise. I truly believe that it was the contributions of the EJIHC that helped our team secure this initial victory, and I hope and believe that next year’s cohort will help us take further steps to achieve victory and justice for our clients and for all the brave students speaking truth to power.”
Deema Azizi, a Senior Litigation Attorney at CAIR-NY, said: “As a CUNY Law alum, I am thrilled to be working on this case with the wonderful students in the Equal Justice In-House Clinic and Professor Shroff. With Professor Shroff’s supervision, the students have had the unique and invaluable opportunity to participate in the day-to-day work of litigation and engage in the depths of discovery practice—and to do so in a civil rights impact case. This is incredible experience for a law student, and the students working on this case have demonstrated diligence, skill, and dedication to this important work. Professor Shroff’s leadership and contributions in multiple aspects of the litigation have been nothing short of excellent. The attorneys at CAIR-NY working on Khalil et al. v. Columbia University et al. are honored to be on this legal team with Professor Shroff and his clinic students.”
What the Work Produces
Students leave the clinic having handled pieces of federal civil rights litigation that would challenge many practicing lawyers. Working through doctrinal complexity and the rigors of brief-craft and record development, and contributing to cases where the consequences extend far beyond the parties involved, students graduate with unparalleled hands-on experience, a hallmark of the Law School’s clinical education program that has remained in the top-five nationally for well over a decade.
Jacob Acuña, part of the EJIHC’s inaugural cohort, describes the experience as “an honor of a lifetime to serve the plaintiffs” in Khalil, one that has sharpened his legal research and writing and built his confidence as an advocate entering practice. “As I head into the field, I know this clinic has refined my approach to legal research and writing, while bolstering my confidence as an advocate,” he said.
Trevor Godbolt, also a part of the EJIHC first cohort, said: “This clinic—and this case in particular—illuminated the complexities and nuances of civil litigation while strengthening my ability to work collaboratively on a legal team. Through a client-centered approach to lawyering, I became a more effective writer and am confident in my development into an adept attorney.”
What students gain during the mandatory capstone experience of clinics is more than a set of skills. In this case, it includes a clear-eyed understanding of what litigation actually requires: how carefully arguments must be constructed, how long it takes to build a record, how often the work unfolds in conditions that are contested at every step, what it means to work in collaboration with community leaders and national advocates, and why it matters to be ready for that.
Cases like Khalil v. Columbia University don’t come to our clinics by accident. They require faculty doing this work at a national level, institutional commitment to clinics that are willing to take on hard cases, and students prepared to step into roles that carry real responsibility. At CUNY School of Law, that combination is part of the structure. And in Khalil, it is visible in the work.