The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has denied both a petition for rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc in *StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology*, allowing a previous panel ruling to stand in a case that a concurring judge described as presenting "difficult issues" at the intersection of constitutional speech guarantees and civil rights law.
The court's order, entered Jan. 21, 2026, formally denied the petitions after a majority of active judges declined to vote for en banc review. The case, numbered 24-1800, involves plaintiffs StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice, Katerina Boukin and Marilyn Meyers challenging MIT over issues relating to both First Amendment protections and Title VI anti-discrimination requirements.
Circuit Judge Dunlap wrote separately to concur with the denial while expressing concerns about the scope of the panel's original decision. "This case touches on the intersection of the First Amendment and Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d," Dunlap wrote. "As such, it presents difficult issues relating to the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and the scope of antidiscrimination laws."
The concurring opinion highlights the complex legal terrain the case navigates, noting that it addresses these constitutional and statutory questions "in the fraught context of hot-button geopolitical controversies and the insidious reality of antisemitism." Judge Dunlap acknowledged that antisemitism has a "sordid history," quoting from the panel's original opinion in *StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology*, 158 F.4th 1, 16 (1st Cir. 2025).
While agreeing with the denial of rehearing, Judge Dunlap expressed reservations about the breadth of the panel's analysis. "In my view, the panel went further than it ought to have gone to resolve the present dispute," the judge wrote. However, Dunlap concluded that "the arguments raised" did not justify rehearing en banc under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(b)(2) and (c).
The case represents a significant development in the ongoing legal battles over campus speech rights and anti-discrimination protections at universities. The intersection of First Amendment free speech guarantees with Title VI's prohibition on discrimination in federally funded programs has become increasingly complex as universities grapple with addressing antisemitism while protecting constitutional speech rights.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in programs receiving federal financial assistance. Universities like MIT receive substantial federal funding and must comply with Title VI requirements. The law has been interpreted to include protections against antisemitic harassment and discrimination.
The First Circuit's handling of this case reflects the broader challenges federal courts face in balancing competing legal principles. Universities must navigate their obligations under federal anti-discrimination law while respecting the First Amendment rights of students, faculty and campus speakers. This balance becomes particularly delicate when addressing speech related to geopolitical controversies that may affect Jewish students and community members.
StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice, one of the plaintiffs in the case, is an organization that advocates against antisemitism and supports Israel. The involvement of individual plaintiffs Katerina Boukin and Marilyn Meyers alongside the organizational plaintiff suggests the case may involve specific incidents or policies at MIT that allegedly violated both constitutional and statutory protections.
The denial of en banc review means the panel's decision will remain binding precedent within the First Circuit, which includes Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico. The ruling could influence how other universities in the circuit address similar conflicts between speech rights and anti-discrimination obligations.
Judge Dunlap's concurrence, while supporting the denial of rehearing, signals that questions remain about the proper scope of judicial intervention in these campus speech disputes. The judge's observation that the panel "went further than it ought to have gone" suggests concerns about courts addressing constitutional and civil rights questions more broadly than necessary to resolve specific disputes.
The case also reflects the heightened attention federal courts are paying to antisemitism on college campuses. Recent years have seen increased litigation over university responses to antisemitic incidents, with plaintiffs arguing that inadequate institutional responses violate both constitutional principles and federal anti-discrimination law.
The timing of the order, coming in early 2026, places it within a period of continued national focus on campus speech issues and university policies regarding discrimination and harassment. The First Circuit's decision to let the panel ruling stand without further review may provide some clarity for universities seeking to understand their legal obligations in this complex area.
For MIT and other universities in the First Circuit, the decision provides guidance on how courts will review institutional policies and responses at the intersection of free speech and anti-discrimination law. The denial of rehearing suggests the appeals court is satisfied with the panel's analysis, despite Judge Dunlap's concerns about its scope.
The case underscores the continuing evolution of law in this area as courts, universities and advocacy groups work to define the boundaries between protecting free expression and preventing discrimination in educational settings.