Download PDF Washington, D.C., March 20, 2018 – A United States federal judge has ruled that the professors who are suing the American Studies Association (ASA) for its boycott of Israeli universities and academic institutions may file an amended complaint that substantially expands their case. The amended complaint adds new claims based on evidence revealed during discovery. It alleges that the defendants deliberately limited nominations for the ASA National Council to pro-boycott candidates, strategically hid their pro-boycott agendas when they stood for office, withheld pertinent information about the boycott resolution from voting members, and froze membership rolls prior to the vote to prevent those opposed from voting. The amended complaint also adds several new defendants to the case, including John Stephens, the Executive Director of the ASA, Jasbir Puar, J. Kehaulani Kauanui, and Steven Salaita, all of whom were heavily involved in the underhanded effort to adopt the boycott. Not coincidentally, Puar, Kauanui, and Salaita are also all leaders of the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI) and members of the USACBI Advisory Committee or Organizing Collective. Other defendants include Lisa Duggan, Curtis Marez, Neferti Tadiar, Sunaina Maira and Chandan Reddy. The amended complaint also adds new claims for breach of fiduciary duties, breach of contract, and ultra vires activity. This ruling follows the professors’ success in partially defeating the American Studies Association’s Motion to Dismiss in April 2017, which moved the case forward to discovery. The lawsuit was initially filed in 2016 by American Studies professors who are current and former ASA members. After numerous unsuccessful attempts to internally address the corrupt practices they witnessed at the time of the vote, the professors decided to enlist the help of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which assembled a team of lawyers and legal scholars to represent them. According to the plaintiffs, the boycott adopted by ASA in 2013 was a concerted effort by a small number of BDS activists who used their leadership positions in ASA to make anti-Israel activism the central focus of the Association, subverting the mission of an academic association and manipulating the vote in violation of the law. The lawsuit reveals the defendants attempted to prevent informed discourse and withheld pertinent materials opposing the resolution, including one signed by 70 ASA members and another from eight former ASA presidents. During discovery, emails were unearthed that provided additional proof of the corruption that occurred. The emails, some of which are quoted in the amended complaint, exposed a covert and premeditated plot by USACBI leaders to pack ASA leadership with USACBI advocates who would ensure that the ASA would adopt the USACBI boycott, essentially hijacking the ASA and its resources for their own purposes. For example, an email from Maira explicitly states that “Jasbir [Puar] is nominating me and Alex Lubin for the Council and she suggests populating it with as many supporters as possible.” A second email from Puar states, “I think we should prepare for the longer-term struggle by populating elected positions with as [many BDS] supporters as possible.” A third email, this time from Lubin, states, “In my conversations with Jasbir it’s clear that the intent of her nominations was to bring more people who do work in, and are politically committed to . . . the question of Palestine . . . we were nominated in order to build momentum for BDS[.]” (Second Amended Complaint at p. 21.) In addition, the emails detail a deliberate scheme by certain defendants to hide their boycott positions until after they were elected. For example, an email from Maira states, “I feel it might be more strategic not to present ourselves as a pro-boycott slate. We need to get on the Council and I think our larger goal is support for the resolution[.]” Another USACBI leader, David Lloyd, replied, “I would definitely suggest not specifying BDS, but emphasizing support for academic freedom, etc.” (Second Amended Complaint at pp. 23-24.) Numerous other emails unveil this secret strategy, and that year, two of the defendants, Sunaina Maira and J. Kehaulani Kauanui, ran for the ASA National Council without disclosing their intentions. Yet the great majority of their efforts, once elected, was dedicated to the adoption of the USACBI boycott. Also, of critical importance to all current and former members of the ASA, the new complaint also alleges that the defendants have invaded the ASA’s trust fund – for the first time since at least 2002 – in order to pay expenses largely arising from or related to the resolution, as well as decreases in revenue related to the subsequent decline of the ASA’s reputation and good will. The complaint quotes an internal email that states that the ASA leadership withdrew $294,000 from the trust fund over the past years, largely to cover expenses incurred in advancing the BDS agenda. The complaint further alleges that the ASA rushed through a change in the corporate bylaws to allow for these withdrawals. Previously, the ASA’s bylaws forbade any withdrawal from the capital of the trust. (See Second Amended Complaint at pp. 57-61.) In addition to granting the plaintiffs’ request to file the amended complaint, the Court instructed the parties to brief the question whether plaintiffs meet the threshold amount required to proceed in federal court. The parties have 30 days to provide this supplemental briefing. This latest decision by the federal court is a significant step forward for everyone who is concerned about the anti-Semitic BDS movement, its deleterious impact on academic institutions and the unlawful practices of those attempting to undermine the pillars of higher education to advance a personal, political agenda. The case, Bronner et al v. Duggan et al (Case 1:16-cv-00740), is before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Rudolph Contreras is presiding over the case.