Indiana AG Rokita steps up Butler, Notre Dame DEI investigations with new legal demands
Earlier this summer, Rokita's office sent letters to Notre Dame, Butler and DePauw University in which he requested a bevy of internal DEI information and argued such practices and policies are a form of racial discrimination. Now, in letters sent this month, Rokita is issuing a civil investigative demand, which is a legal tool the attorney general can use to collect information prior to litigation.
"On behalf of the people of Indiana, a full investigation is warranted to ensure that racial discrimination is not practiced in our institutions of higher education," Rokita said in a new release.
He said the two universities failed to "address in any meaningful way" the questions included in his initial request for information in May. In the release, he said publicly available materials are "troubling" and "raise serious questions" whether they are in compliance with discrimination law. DePauw's response to the office's request is still being reviewed, the release said.
IndyStar has requested comment from Notre Dame and Butler.
In his Aug. 6 letter to Notre Dame — a Catholic university — Rokita said its religious mission does not give it "a license to discriminate on the basis of race, and the critically important First Amendment right to free exercise of religion."
Rokita was more scathing and explicit in his Aug. 13 letter to Butler, which doesn't have a religious affiliation.
"The state of Indiana has a 'fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education,'" Rokita's Butler letter reads. "I aim to vindicate that interest by helping ensure that institutions of higher education in our state do not practice racial discrimination of any kind in their admissions, hiring, or other functions."
His office is additionally investigating whether the univeristy has violated two consumer protection laws, the Indiana False Claims Act and the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act — threats that were not weighed against Notre Dame.
Rokita is the first attorney general in the country to publicly threaten legal challenges using a university's nonprofit status over differences on "culture war" issues — following the lead of U.S. President Donald Trump's feud with Harvard University.
A flurry of recent federal and state executive orders seek to strip DEI from the government's vernacular. One particular Indiana law prohibits public institutions from taking actions based on an individual's "personal characteristic," such as race, religion, color or sex.
These types of civil demands are typically a precursor to litigation, which Rokita has floated as a possibility.
Notre Dame must respond to the new demands by Aug. 27 and Butler by Sept. 3.
Rokita's assistant chief deputy, Blake Lanning, previously told IndyStar that the office could seek targeted court injunctions to halt policies and practices it believes to be illegal.
Nonprofit organizations such as these universities exist to provide a public benefit, Lanning said, and in turn, they receive tax benefits. If an organization's actions are antithetical to its purpose, he said, the attorney general's office has legal grounds to act.
However, the Indiana attorney general's powers are focused on operational changes, so the office cannot revoke a nonprofit's tax-exempt status and force an organization to pay state taxes, such as corporate income, property and sales taxes.
The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Engadget
8 minutes ago
- Engadget
The Supreme Court lets Mississippi's social media age-verification law go into effect
The Supreme Court has decided not to weigh in on one of the many state-level age-verification laws currently being reviewed across the country. Today, the top court chose not to intervene on legislation from Mississippi about checking the ages of social media users, denying an application to vacate stay from NetChoice. The Mississippi law requires all users to verify their ages in order to use social media sites. It also places responsibility on the social networks to prevent children from accessing "harmful materials" and it requires parental consent for minors to use any social media. NetChoice represents several tech companies — including social media platforms Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube — and it sued to block the law on grounds that it violates the First Amendment. A district court ruled in favor of NetChoice, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted its temporary block. Although Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied the application to vacate stay on the appeals court ruling, he also wrote that "NetChoice has, in my view, demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on the merits—namely, that enforcement of the Mississippi law would likely violate its members' First Amendment rights under this Court's precedents." He denied the application because NetChoice "has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time." This decision means that, at least for now, Mississippi's law will be allowed to stand. "Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed in defending the First Amendment," said Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. "This is merely an unfortunate procedural delay." There are several other state laws being assessed at various points in the US legal system. Some are centered on adult content providers such as pornography sites , while others are more broadly targeting social media use. Arkansas and Florida have seen federal judges block their laws, while Texas and Nebraska are working toward adopting their own rules about social media for minors. Yahoo, the parent company of Engadget, is a member of NetChoice.
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court allows Mississippi to require age verification on social media like Facebook and X
There were no noted dissents from the brief, unsigned order. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that there's a good chance NetChoice will eventually succeed in showing that the law is unconstitutional, but hadn't shown it must be blocked while the lawsuit unfolds. NetChoice argues that the Mississippi law threatens privacy rights and unconstitutionally restricts the free expression of users of all ages. Advertisement A federal judge agreed and Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up It's the latest legal development as court challenges play out against similar laws in states across the country. Parents and even Advertisement Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch told the justices that age verification could help protect young people from 'sexual abuse, trafficking, physical violence, sextortion and more,' activities that Fitch noted are not protected by the First Amendment. NetChoice represents some of the country's most high-profile technology companies, including Google, which owns YouTube; Snap Inc., the parent company of Snapchat; and Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram. NetChoice has filed similar lawsuits in Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, called the decision 'an unfortunate procedural delay.' 'Although we're disappointed with the Court's decision, Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed in defending the First Amendment — not just in this case but across all NetChoice's ID-for-Speech lawsuits," he said.
Vox
3 hours ago
- Vox
Justice Kavanaugh just revealed an unfortunate truth about the Supreme Court
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court handed down a very brief order on Thursday, which allows a Mississippi law restricting children's access to social media to remain in place — for now. It is far from clear, however, whether the Mississippi law at issue in Netchoice v. Fitch will remain in place for very long. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is ideologically at the center of this very conservative Supreme Court, wrote a concurring opinion explaining that he thinks the law 'would likely violate [social media companies'] First Amendment rights under this Court's precedents.' SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. But he joined the Court's decision nonetheless because the plaintiff in this case, a trade group that represents internet companies, 'has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time.' What is the 'shadow docket'? Kavanaugh's reference to 'the balance of harms and equities' refers to the rule the Supreme Court used to apply in its 'shadow docket' cases, a mix of emergency motions and other matters that the justices decide on an expedited basis. Typically, when the Court grants shadow docket relief, it issues a temporary order that blocks a lower court decision until the case is fully litigated in federal appeals courts and, in some cases, the Supreme Court. In Nken v. Holder (2009), the Court held that, when a litigant asks an appellate court to block a lower court's decision while the case is still ongoing, it is not enough for that litigant to show they are likely to prevail on appeal. To receive shadow docket relief, the litigant must also show that they 'will be irreparably injured absent a stay.' Often, appeals courts must also ask whether blocking the lower court's decision would 'substantially injure' any third parties, or otherwise harm 'the public interest.' Kavanaugh is probably right that the Mississippi law at issue in Netchoice does not irreparably injure anyone. Though the law purports to prevent minors from signing up for social media accounts without their parents' permission, it is fairly toothless. And it is far from clear whether any actual child or teenager has not been able to use a social media site because of the law. (If you want to read more about the law and why it violates the First Amendment, I wrote that piece here.) A special set of rules for Trump Kavanaugh's decision to apply Nken to the Netchoice case is odd, because the Court appears to have abandoned Nken in many of its shadow docket cases. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained in a pair of dissenting opinions earlier this year, when President Donald Trump seeks a shadow docket order, the Court typically ignores Nken and rules in favor of Trump, regardless of whether he or his administration would be irreparably injured. In Social Security Administration v. AFSCME (2025), for example, the Republican justices ruled that DOGE, the White House office once led by billionaire Elon Musk, may have immediate access to sensitive information kept by the Social Security Administration. Notably, however, when a judge asked one of Trump's lawyers what harm the government would experience if DOGE's access to this information were delayed, the lawyer did not name any such harm — saying instead that the Trump administration would 'stand on the record in its current form.' In the Trump administration's brief to the justices in AFSCME, Trump's lawyers did not even attempt to argue that the administration faced irreparable injury without shadow docket relief. That brief devoted only one paragraph to the question of irreparable harm, and it did not identify any injury to the government that could not be unraveled by a future court order. Instead, it complained that the lower court order blocking DOGE's access 'impinges on the President's broad authority.' The First Amendment is (probably) safe Kavanaugh's Fitch opinion is clarifying for two reasons. Last June, the Supreme Court slightly rolled back First Amendment rights, holding that states may require pornographic websites to verify that their users are over age 18. It was unclear after that decision, known as Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, whether the Court planned to further weaken the First Amendment, or whether Free Speech Coalition was a one-off decision applying solely to porn. Kavanaugh's Fitch concurrence suggests that the First Amendment is safe. To his credit, Kavanaugh has generally voted in favor of free speech, including in cases where Republican lawmakers sought to restrict it.
