A U.S. House committee has launched an inquiry into Northwestern University’s legal clinic, questioning its involvement in representing activists accused of blocking traffic during a pro-Palestine protest near Chicago’s O’Hare Airport. The congressional panel has requested extensive documentation, including clinic budgets, personnel records, and policies, marking what appears to be an unprecedented level of scrutiny on a law school’s legal representation choices.
The focus of the investigation is the Community Justice and Civil Rights Clinic, which took on the defense of protesters arrested in April 2024. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce, led by Michigan Republican Tim Walberg, framed the clinic’s involvement as the use of federally supported university resources to defend what it termed “illegal, antisemitic conduct.”
Northwestern, in response, emphasized that its clinics take on a diverse array of cases and do not necessarily reflect the university’s stance. The law school pointed out that its clinic is also representing individuals linked to the January 6 Capitol riot, illustrating the wide scope of its legal work.
Legal scholars and advocacy groups have condemned the congressional inquiry as an attack on academic freedom. The Clinical Legal Education Association, along with the Association of American Law Schools, described the demand for detailed operational data as a pressure tactic aimed at discouraging law school clinics from taking on controversial cases.
This investigation is part of a broader effort by the Republican-led committee to probe universities over alleged antisemitism, with prior inquiries targeting Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT. Meanwhile, federal action against certain universities has escalated, with the recent withdrawal of $400 million in grants from Columbia University following an antisemitism-related probe.
Some legal experts warn that such congressional intervention could have a chilling effect on law school clinics, pressuring them to avoid cases that might draw political scrutiny. Robert Kuehn, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, noted that while state lawmakers have previously challenged legal clinics over their choice of clients, federal involvement in such matters is virtually unheard of.
As Northwestern prepares its response, the case raises broader concerns about the independence of legal education and the role of law school clinics in representing socially and politically sensitive clients.
