A former Justice Department attorney has alleged that investigations into alleged antisemitism at Ivy League universities were conducted with predetermined conclusions and deviated from standard investigative practices. The claims were detailed in a whistleblower complaint filed with the House Judiciary Committee.
Haley Van Erem, who served as a career attorney in the DOJ's Civil Rights Division for nearly a decade, stated in the 28-page complaint that senior officials at the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services departed from established practices designed to ensure accuracy and legal compliance. According to the complaint, some investigations lacked a factual basis for initiation, and concerns raised by attorneys were often disregarded or admonished.
"Certain enforcement outcomes had been predetermined before the relevant evidence was collected and evaluated," the complaint states. Van Erem's complaint does not dispute the seriousness of antisemitism, but rather questions the impartiality of the investigations.
During the investigation into Brown University, for example, witness interviews and document reviews reportedly concluded there was no Title VI violation. Despite these findings, the complaint alleges that some DOJ leadership pursued a settlement violation. Brown University ultimately settled with the Justice Department to partially restore federal funding.
The complaint also cited irregularities in the investigations into Columbia University and Harvard University. For Columbia, it noted an accelerated timeline based on media reports. Regarding Harvard, the complaint stated that "extraordinary funding freezes and sweeping proposed settlement terms—including provisions affecting curriculum, governance, endowment funds, and other matters—were being pursued before any completed investigation had established Title VI violations and without a demonstrated connection between the proposed remedies and substantiated findings of unlawful discrimination."
The cases involving Harvard and Columbia are reportedly still in litigation.
According to House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin, a former Trump administration official indicated that while there was "not a Title VI violation" at Brown, a "letter of no violation" would not be cleared. Raskin suggested this implied the administration was using antisemitism as a pretext to reclaim funds and penalize institutions considered politically incorrect.
Van Erem reportedly opposed these practices in writing and was allegedly told to cease creating a written record, with career attorneys being informed their role was to provide policy, not legal advice. The complaint details a "documented scheme to suspend hundreds of millions in federal funding without required findings, notices, or hearings," which Van Erem allegedly witnessed and opposed.
In response to the allegations, a Justice Department spokesperson stated, "While at the DOJ, Ms. Haley Van Erem did not work on university investigations. And for all matters, the Department stands behind the integrity of these investigations."