Howard University Law School Faces Jury Trial in Defamation Suit

Howard University Law School and its former dean, Danielle Holley, must face a jury trial on defamation claims brought by an expelled White student.

Two of Michael Newman’s defamation claims based on remarks by Holley survived Howard’s bid for summary judgment—including that Newman said that African-Americans suffer from “hive mind,” Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the US District Court for the District of Columbia said in a Wednesday order.

Newman’s claim that Howard, Holley, and the other defendants substantially interfered with his ability to obtain a J.D. degree in violation of Section 1981 also will move forward, the judge said, because Howard did not address those allegations.

McFadden granted summary judgment to Howard on Newman’s breach-of-contract claims; his allegation that Howard and other defendants who include Howard University President Wayne Frederick interfered with his scholarship in violation of Section 1981; and his defamation claim against Holley, now president of Mount Holyoke College, over her accusation that Newman committed harassment.

Holley’s decision, “after a year of frustration with Newman,” to bring charges on behalf of unnamed student victims who opted not to file their own complaints is “at least open to question,” McFadden said. That evidence could permit a jury to find that Holley made the statements because of her “ill will” for Newman, he said.

Further, with regard to the two claims based on statements by Holley that survive summary judgment, a jury could find that her statements injured Newman’s reputation and were false, McFadden said.

Newman chose Howard in part because of the academic scholarship he was granted, including $26,000 towards his first year’s tuition. If his first-year rank dipped below the 50% threshold, he would lose the scholarship. He suffered “social problems,” including political disagreements with classmates, McFadden said, noting one incident in which he wrote to classmates suggesting that they watch the documentary “Uncle Tom” to gain the perspective of conservative Black people.

He also had “trouble” adjusting to his law school classes, struggling “excessively” in at least one, McFadden said.

Howard ultimately expelled Newman after a school panel found him responsible for “harassment” and “disruptive conduct.”

Howard is entitled to summary judgment on Newman’s claims that it interfered with his ability to fulfill the scholarship agreement, McFadden said. Howard didn’t adjust its ‘grading and ranking systems “specifically to target” Newman, the judge said, noting that he failed to rank in the top half of his class because he struggled academically, as reflected in two Ds and a C in his first semester, placing him among the bottom five students in his section.

Newman’s argument that administrators walked back their promise that he wouldn’t be ranked if he dropped legal writing fails, the judge said, because administrators repeatedly discouraged Newman from dropping his writing class.

Newman’s argument that Howard’s records reporting his rank in different ways is suspicious also fails. His exact ranking within the bottom half of his class “is irrelevant to whether Howard breached the agreement or its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing,” McFadden said.

Further, Newman rests on “‘bald conjecture’” and introduces “no evidence” that shows that administrators, including Holley, tried to change or interfere with his grades, the judge said.

Another of Newman’s contract claims—that Howard administrators launched a “smear campaign” against him that helped spur professors to give him low grades—also fails, McFadden said. And he shows no evidence that his professors interfered with his grades “in the way he alleges,” the judge said.

Howard also didn’t fail to correct a “racially hostile environment,” as Newman claimed. Howard Law officials devoted “lots of time to helping Newman succeed socially and academically,” the judge said.

McFadden also rejected Newman’s claim over loss of the scholarship asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a federal civil rights law that prohibits racial discrimination in contracting, citing that the claim overlaps with his failed breach-contract claims.

Further, while Holley “disliked Newman and sympathized with student complaints about him, no evidence” shows her feelings “manifested” in actions that affected his scholarship, the judge said.

Newman’s evidence to back up his Section1981 claim is circumstantial, “and it comes up short,” the judge said.

Newman also doesn’t create a “triable issue over racial discrimination,” in part because he fails to produce a “nearly identical” comparator to show he was treated differently than his non-White student peers, McFadden said.

Newman is representing himself. Crowell & Moring LLP represents Howard.

The case is Newman v. Howard Univ. Sch. of Law, D.D.C., No. 1:23-cv-00436, 3/25/26.