A prominent conservative advocacy organization has officially withdrawn its lawsuit against the University of Michigan Law Review, ending a high-profile legal challenge that accused the journal of racial and gender discrimination in its editorial and article-selection process.
The group, Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preference (FASORP), had filed the lawsuit in June 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The suit alleged that the Michigan Law Review engaged in discriminatory practices that favored women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+, and transgender individuals while disadvantaging heterosexual white men in both the selection of student editors and the publication of scholarly articles.
Voluntary Dismissal Filed Without Explanation
According to court filings made on Friday, FASORP voluntarily dismissed the case, providing no explanation for its decision. The group’s attorney, Jonathan Mitchell, a well-known conservative legal figure and former solicitor general of Texas, did not respond to media inquiries about whether any settlement discussions had taken place. Neither the University of Michigan Law School nor the Michigan Law Review issued public statements regarding the case’s dismissal.
The lawsuit had drawn national attention for its claims, which mirrored similar actions filed by FASORP against other elite law journals across the country. Legal scholars and commentators had closely watched the Michigan case as another potential flashpoint in the ongoing national debate over race-conscious policies in academic institutions following the Supreme Court’s landmark 2023 decision ending affirmative action in college admissions.
Allegations of Systemic Bias in Selection
In its complaint, FASORP asserted that the Law Review’s selection process “intentionally and systematically discriminates” against white, heterosexual men by using personal statements that encouraged applicants to discuss how they would contribute to diversity and inclusion within the publication. The organization alleged that such criteria effectively penalized applicants who did not belong to “preferred demographic groups.”
The plaintiffs claimed to represent three unnamed white, heterosexual male law professors—each of whom allegedly had manuscripts rejected by the Michigan Law Review—and one anonymous second-year law student applicant who said he was unfairly denied membership on the journal.
The lawsuit also accused the Law Review of accepting “inferior submissions” from women, minorities, and LGBTQ+ scholars while rejecting “superior work” from white male professors. FASORP argued that this practice violated Title VI and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and sex in federally funded institutions.
Ties to Conservative Legal Activism
FASORP was represented in part by America First Legal, a nonprofit legal group founded by Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to former President Donald Trump. America First Legal has gained prominence for filing lawsuits challenging what it calls “woke discrimination” and alleged racial preferences in academia, hiring, and government policy.
The Michigan lawsuit was one of several actions brought by FASORP targeting major law schools and journals for similar alleged practices. The group’s 2023 lawsuit against the New York University Law Review was dismissed by a federal judge in 2024, and earlier cases against the Harvard Law Review in 2018 also failed to advance. Despite these setbacks, FASORP has continued to pursue litigation against other institutions, including Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, where it alleges bias in faculty hiring and editorial selection against white men.
Legal experts note that FASORP’s lawsuits are part of a broader conservative campaign to challenge diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across academia and the private sector. Many of these efforts gained momentum after the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling, as conservative organizations sought to extend its logic beyond admissions to hiring and other institutional practices.
Legal Community Reacts
While the dismissal of the Michigan case brings an abrupt end to this particular challenge, it leaves unresolved questions about how far DEI policies can go before crossing into unlawful discrimination under federal law.
Some constitutional scholars argue that FASORP’s legal theory—asserting reverse discrimination under Title VI and Title IX—has struggled to gain traction in the courts because of standing issues and lack of concrete evidence of injury. Others suggest that as DEI programs continue to evolve, the line between lawful diversity promotion and impermissible bias will remain an active battleground in both academia and employment law.
At the University of Michigan, the Law Review has historically maintained a hybrid selection process combining academic performance with a holistic evaluation that includes personal statements and diversity contributions. The journal did not publicly respond to FASORP’s allegations but has previously defended its process as merit-based and consistent with the university’s equal opportunity policies.
Broader Context in Higher Education
The case’s withdrawal reflects a growing legal and political tension surrounding DEI initiatives in higher education. Universities nationwide have faced increasing scrutiny from conservative lawmakers, donors, and advocacy groups over programs seen as privileging certain racial or gender identities. Meanwhile, institutions continue to defend their diversity policies as essential to creating inclusive learning environments and expanding representation within the legal profession.
With FASORP’s withdrawal, the Michigan Law Review avoids a protracted legal battle that could have placed its editorial practices under federal judicial review. However, given FASORP’s active litigation history and public statements, further lawsuits targeting academic journals or university hiring practices remain likely.
For now, the end of this case underscores how the legal fight over affirmative action, diversity, and academic merit continues to evolve long after the Supreme Court’s ruling. Even as this particular challenge fades, the debate over equity and fairness in elite legal education shows no signs of slowing down.
Your Legal Career Deserves the Right Opportunities
As the legal world continues to evolve—shaped by changing policies, landmark rulings, and ongoing debates—finding the right career path has never been more important. Whether you’re a recent graduate, an experienced attorney, or exploring new opportunities, LawCrossing connects you to thousands of verified legal positions across the nation.
👉 Start exploring your next career move today at LawCrossing.com — where the best legal opportunities find you.
See Related Articles:
•15 Top Law Schools: Best Program for Aspiring Lawyers
•Decode Law Schools Ranking
•Law School Profile
