Virginia Foxx says she’s immune from student’s lawsuit over antisemitism probe
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Khymani James sued Rep. Virginia Foxx on Feb. 5, 2025.
- Foxx moved to dismiss on Apr. 27, 2025, citing Speech or Debate and sovereign immunity.
- Judge Paul Engelmayer in SDNY will decide whether to honor the motion or opposition.
In 2024, Columbia University suspended pro-Palestinian student activist Khymani James after they made inflammatory and threatening statements regarding Israel, including: “Zionists don’t deserve to live” and “Be grateful that I’m not just going out and murdering Zionists.”
Then, James sued U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, contending that her congressional committee’s investigation into antisemitism on American campuses resulted in that disciplinary action.
James contends in the lawsuit, filed on Feb. 5 in the Southern District of New York, that Foxx violated their First Amendment rights and deliberately intimidated Columbia to comply with her wishes to have James expelled. In September 2025, Foxx posted that because Columbia didn’t formally expel James, the school “failed again, again, and again.”
Now, Foxx says this “threadbare” and “meritless” case against her should be thrown out. James, in turn, has filed a brief in opposition to that motion. It’s up to Judge Paul Engelmayer in the Southern District of New York to decide which to honor.
As a student at Columbia, James made numerous threatening remarks about Zionists and wide-ranging comments about Israel, including that it is a racist state led by war criminals. This was a time at the school marked by intense pro-Palestinian demonstrations and encampments tied to the war between Israel and Hamas.
After their suspension, James was denied readmission to Columbia in 2025. James previously sued Columbia over his suspension.
Foxx, a Republican from Banner Elk, was chairwoman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce when it subpoenaed Columbia in 2024 for documents relating to its antisemitism investigation. The result of that investigation — a report titled “Antisemitism on College Campuses Exposed” — mentions James by name.
Foxx contends the case should be thrown out without a trial. Members of Congress have absolute immunity for investigative work under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, she argues. As for the September 2025 post, Foxx says it merely reported that Columbia told her it would expel James — she didn’t demand Columbia do anything, she contends.
“Rather than take accountability, Plaintiff points the finger at others. ... Because Plaintiff’s predicament is a result of Plaintiff’s own actions, and the suit is barred by two separate immunity doctrines (Speech or Debate Clause and Sovereign Immunity), Plaintiff faces insurmountable jurisdictional obstacles,” the motion, filed April 27, reads.
The motion frames the lawsuit in the context of Israel’s war in Gaza, and Foxx’s analysis of the impact of that war in America.
“In the aftermath of the October 7, 2023 terrorist attacks in Israel, a wave of antisemitism swept over our nation’s college campuses, leading to discrimination against Jewish students at institutions of higher education receiving billions of dollars in federal funds,” it reads. “Plaintiff Khymani James was suspended by Columbia University for one year in August 2024 for partaking in this troubling trend and doing so in a threatening manner.”
In response to Foxx’s motion to dismiss, James filed an opposition brief on May 9.
“This case, despite the clouds of smoke emitted by Defendant’s counsel, presents the following relatively simple questions for this Court: Does a sitting Congressperson have the right, without accountability, to use the authority of her position, to demand that a university expel an individual student she does not like?,” it reads. “Can she then validly claim the protection of the Speech and Debate Clause, or of sovereign immunity, on the grounds that secretly trying to end the education and career of a beleaguered twenty-two year old African American kid, is in pursuit of a valid legislative purpose?
The opposition brief frames the response to pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses as one of “eight great free speech crises in American history” and says “Khymani is the iconic First Amendment client. Why do we even have a First Amendment, if not for Khymani?”
“Ms. Foxx’s attacks on Khymani James are astonishing and unprofessional,” the brief says. “... It seems likely that Rep. Foxx is trying to assert the infamous ‘They had it coming’ defense, in other words, I may have broken every law to get at Khymani James, but they richly deserved it!”
Foxx has until June 1 to file a reply letter to James’ latest brief.
Neither James nor Foxx responded to a request for comment on Tuesday.
This story was originally published May 27, 2026 at 2:15 PM.
