Conservative Group Accuses Michigan Law Review of Selection Bias

A legal group opposed to racial and gender preferences in academia sued the University of Michigan’s law review and leadership, alleging the journal’s selection process is based on a discriminatory scheme favoring women, racial minorities, gay, and transgender contributors.

The plaintiff—Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences—alleges the Michigan Law Review’s “use of race and sex preferences in grading personal statements and the holistic-review process is a flagrant violation of state and federal anti-discrimination law,” according to its complaint filed Wednesday with the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

“Students who are believed to be conservative or members of organizations such as the Federalist Society are never chosen to serve” on the journal’s Holistic Review Committee, FASORP alleges, “because these students would resist or expose the Law Review’s use of illegal race and sex preferences when selecting student members.”

A University of Michigan law school spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to a written request for comment.

FASORP, founded in 2018, is backed by conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell and America First Legal Foundation, headed by President Donald Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller.

The nonprofit group previously sued other universities’ law reviews, including a dismissed suit aimed at New York University, as well as another suit against Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, which is still pending in court. America First Legal, was co-counsel for FASORP in the suit against Northwestern.

Separately, the US Department of Education and US Department of Health and Human Services announced investigations into Harvard University and the Harvard Law Review in April, citing reports of race-based discrimination—yet another attack from the Trump administration, that’s taken issue with various policies at the Ivy League school in recent months over its diversity policies.

FASORP says the Michigan Law Review de-prioritized a merit-based selection process and implemented “a corrupt and illegal scheme of race and sex preferences,” using a multi-pronged submission process, including requiring a personal statement, mini-note, bluebook exercise, note proposal, and first-year grades.

“But there is no fixed or announced formula for weighing these five different factors, or for deciding which students will be accepted through this ‘holistic review’ process,” the group says.

The group wants an overhaul of the law review’s selection process and suspension of federal funding until discriminatory practices are eliminated, according to the complaint.

FASORP alleges the defendants violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating in favor of racial minorities when picking members, editors, articles, and citations for the law review. Since the university receives federal financial assistance, it’s subject to Title VI’s anti-discrimination requirements, the complaint notes.

The group also alleges the school conspired to violate civil rights under 42 USC Section 1985 and violated 42 USC Section 1981, Title IX, the speech clause of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the equal protection clause under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

The complaint also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief; damages; and attorneys’ fees and costs. It additionally requests a revised proposal be submitted to the court for approval within 30 days of judgment and the appointment of a court monitor to oversee the selection process.

Judge Judith E. Levy was assigned to the case.

Mitchell Law PLLC represents FASORP.

The case is Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences v. Michigan Law Review Assoc., E.D. Mich., No. 5:25-cv-11837, complaint, 6/18/25.