Pseudonymity Allowed (for Now) in Lawsuit Against Palestinian Student Groups

But one of the pro-pseudonymity decisions on which the court relies (which also involved a lawsuit alleging anti-Semitic behavior) was actually reversed two weeks ago.

From today's decision by Judge Jeannette Vargas (S.D.N.Y.) in Haggai v. Kiswani:

Plaintiffs … filed this suit against Nerdeen Kiswani, individually and as the representative of Within Our Lifetime-United For Palestine, Maryam Alwan, individually and as the representative of Columbia Students For Justice In Palestine, Cameron Jones, individually and as the representative of Columbia-Barnard Jewish Voice For Peace, and Mahmoud Khalil, individually and as the representative of Columbia University Apartheid Divest, Columbia Students For Justice In Palestine, and Columbia-Barnard Jewish Voice For Peace, ("Defendants") under the Antiterrorism Act ("ATA"), 18 U.S.C. § 2333(d), and the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), 28 U.S.C. § 1350….

Plaintiffs in this action are alleged victims of Hamas, a terrorist organization with the goal of destroying the State of Israel. The catalyst of this action are the terrorist attacks of October 7, 2023, when Hamas led an incursion into Southern Israel and murdered more than 1,200 people. In addition to the lives lost, Hamas took more than 200 hostages back to Gaza. In this instant action, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants in this case "are Hamas' propaganda arm in New York City and on the Columbia University campus." Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants' acts done "in furtherance of their goals to assist Hamas have included terrorizing and assaulting Jewish students, unlawfully taking over and damaging public and university property on Columbia's campus, and physically assaulting Columbia University employees." …

Under Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a "complaint must name all the parties." This requirement "serves the vital purpose of facilitating public scrutiny of judicial proceedings and therefore cannot be set aside lightly." A district court has discretion to grant an exception to the "general requirement of disclosure of the names of parties" to allow a party to proceed under a pseudonym…. "[P]seudonyms are the exception and not the rule, and in order to receive the protections of anonymity, a party must make a case rebutting that presumption." …

The Movants, as described earlier, include a parent of a current hostage from October 7, reservists in the IDF, and an IDF veteran who is the family member of a soldier serving in the IDF. It is reasonable that the disclosure of the Movants' identities could potentially expose the Movants to severe harassment—or worse ….

Movants allege that revealing the identities of James Poe and Leo Poe would "place Leo Poe in the gravest physical danger." Leo Poe is one of the hostages who was abducted by Hamas on October 7, 2023, and has been held in Gaza ever since. James Poe and Leo Poe have filed this suit against Defendants, whom they allege are "Hamas' close allies in the United States."

While the Court makes no judgment on the merits of these allegations, the Court does recognize the highly sensitive nature of this proceeding. Hamas is responsible for the killing of more than 1,200 people on October 7, 2023, and the kidnapping of more than 200 others. It is plausible that Hamas could murder Leo Poe in response to this action which his father, James Poe, brings. Erring on the side of caution, this Court finds it appropriate to weigh this factor heavily in favor of anonymity as to James Poe and Leo Poe.

For similar reasons, this Court finds that these factors also weigh heavily in favor of John Doe, Richard Roe and Jane Moe proceeding under pseudonyms. "Doe, Roe, and Moe are Jewish students at Columbia University and current and former IDF soldiers who have fought or have relatives who are fighting Hamas [who] reasonably fear retaliation and reputational harms if they are required to reveal their identities." Doe, Roe, and Moe allege that they have each been "personally subjected to antisemitic harassment prompted by Defendants' conduct."

Examples of alleged antisemitic harassment experienced by Movants include a classmate approaching Roe, stating that they "declare[] their support for Hamas as a 'freedom fighter' group," and telling Roe that "his family and friends live on stolen land." Another example alleged is that "a student accosted Roe as he was standing at a pro-Israel table at the campus clubs fair, put pro-Hamas stickers on their materials, pushed the table, and ripped up the sign-up papers."

As in Doe v. Fashion Inst. of Tech. (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2025), where a Jewish student was permitted to proceed under a pseudonym to prevent her from being subjected to further violent threats related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, the disclosure of Doe, Roe, and Moe's identities could subject them to further threats and harassment….

Once Defendants appear in this litigation, however, they can file a motion to revisit this issue….

Note, though, that the Doe v. Fashion Inst. of Tech. decision that the court cited has been reversed by the same judge who issued it; an excerpt from that Apr. 3 decision:

Plaintiff argues that two potential harms would arise from disclosing her identity. First, she argues that disclosure would result in retaliatory physical harm, given that she has already been subject to violent threats online. And second, Plaintiff argues that disclosure would irreparably damage her reputation. Motion at 5-8 (contending that there is a "real possibility that Plaintiff could be permanently stigmatized by these allegations" and that the allegations "would threaten her ability to secure future employment, pursue academic opportunities, or even engage in personal relationships").

In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she was subject to violent online threats when her picture was posted on social media after she refused to accept a flier that invited students to sign a petition "claim[ing] that the Jews of Israel are colonizers that engage in ethnic cleansing and commit genocide in Gaza." This alleged history of prior action directed at Plaintiff raises some risk of harm to her from third parties. The possibility that Plaintiff would be stigmatized by her name being disclosed, however, is "insufficient to proceed anonymously." Moreover, "Plaintiff's interest in anonymity due to the risk of harm is not one-sided; rather, it must be balanced against the corresponding interest that Defendant[ ] face[s] having been publicly named in Plaintiff's suit." Here, if Plaintiff were to proceed under a pseudonym, FIT "would be required to defend [itself] publicly while [P]laintiff could make her accusations from behind a cloak of anonymity."

[The risk of retaliation] thus weigh[s] only slightly in favor of anonymity….

[Moreover, among other things, g]iven that there is a demonstrated public interest in cases surrounding alleged disparate treatment of Jewish students at colleges and that the facts at the core of this case involve "particular action and incidents" rather than "abstract challenges to public policies," [the public's interest in the litigation] weigh[s] against allowing Plaintiff to proceed anonymously….

While [some] factors tilt in favor of Plaintiff … [other] considerations … weigh against Plaintiff. Reviewing [all the various] factors in their totality, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met her burden of rebutting the strong presumption that she must proceed under her own name.

For other cases dealing with requests for pseudonymity in claims alleging anti-Semitic behavior, see the posts Pro-Israel Jewish Students Suing Haverford College for Hostile Environment Harassment Can Proceed Pseudonymously and No Pseudonymity for Israeli Suing Intel Over Layoff Allegedly Prompted by Complaints Over Boss's Allegedly Pro-Hamas Statements. For more on the inconsistency in the wide range of pseudonymity cases, see The Law of Pseudonymous Litigation.