Judge Denies Gag Order in Cornell Sex Assault Civil Case

A New York judge has denied a request to impose a gag order in the civil case brought by a former Cornell University student alleging sexual assault at a fraternity house. Judge Phaedra Perry-Bond characterized the request as a "side show" intended to "muddy the waters and distract from the merits of the claims and defenses involved in this case."

In her ruling, Judge Perry-Bond stated that public statements made by Jane Doe's attorney, which were used to justify the gag order request, expressed nothing more than the attorney's opinions. "Expressing opinions on the case or reporting on how the litigation has impacted clients cannot alone serve as a factual basis for limiting an individual's First Amendment rights," she wrote. The judge added that while it is important to avoid statements about evidence spoliation before discovery has occurred, isolated remarks were insufficient to demonstrate the serious risk of prejudice required by constitutional precedent.

The judge encouraged the attorneys involved to collaborate on safeguarding their clients and others from threats, harassment, and doxing, noting the notoriety surrounding the case. "The Court believes that given the notoriety of doxing related to this case, it would serve all parties' interests to work together to ensure their clients and others may be safeguarded, to the extent possible, from being inundated with threats or harassment from malicious outside actors," she wrote.

Perry-Bond also criticized the attorney who filed the gag order request for including an email exchange with an attorney for one of the defendants in a court filing. "The Court will not tolerate its docket being used to generate media controversy, and this Court does not tolerate attorneys, especially attorneys who are not even involved in this case, engaging in mudslinging," the judge stated.

The attorneys seeking the gag order had argued for narrowly tailored restrictions on attorneys and parties commenting on the allegations outside of court to prevent juror prejudice and the release of sensitive information that could lead to threats and harassment. In response, an attorney for Jane Doe, Thomas Giuffra, contended that the opposing attorney had attempted to rebut the claims by leaking documents and giving interviews questioning the accuser's story.

The lawsuit stems from a complaint made to campus police in November 2024, three weeks after the alleged incident. The accuser, identified as Jane Doe, claimed she was sexually assaulted by a group of men at the Chi Phi fraternity house after being drugged and raped. She filed a civil suit against seven men and the university, though the men have denied the allegations.

Cornell University has stated it takes sexual violence allegations seriously and has investigated and adjudicated them according to university policies. The school conducted a Title IX investigation, which resulted in sanctions including expulsions and suspensions. The university president recently announced a suspension of all parties and social events at fraternity houses for the remainder of the year, pending consideration of the future of fraternity life on campus.

While no criminal charges have been filed, the New York attorney general's office is conducting an ongoing investigation. The case has drawn significant attention and prompted discussions about the handling of sexual assault allegations on college campuses nationwide.