Following more than three years of tentative deliberation, a legal battle between Howard University and alumni over student, faculty and alumni representation on the Board of Trustees has reached a pivotal point.
In late December, the judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided that the argument should be resolved by the D.C. Superior Court. This would be the next step in the legal process.
The lawsuit was originally filed in December 2021 by 10 Howard alumni after the university removed all student, faculty and alumni positions from the Board of Trustees. The alumni sued the university as they alleged this removal violated Howard’s own bylaws.
In the appeal, which was decided following an oral argument from the appellants and appellees, Judge Robert L. Wilkins wrote that not every case on Howard’s bylaws would be a federal case.
“We fail to see one here,” he said, referring to the court’s decision.
Donald M. Temple, the attorney for the plaintiffs and a Howard alumnus, agreed with Wilkins’ sentiment on the lawsuit. It is officially titled, “Timothy Jenkins v. Howard University.”
“It’s not a federal issue, it is a simple issue, whether the university followed their bylaws,” Temple said. “So I think that’s more compelling in the state court, and the opportunity is going to be pretty much equalized because of the law.”
On the contrary, the university’s legal defense argued that the 1867 Congressional Charter, under which the university was federally chartered and where the bylaws were originally created, provides evidence for this case to be a federal matter.
The Hilltop reached out to Hogan Lovells, the law firm representing the university, but they did not respond in time for publication.
Federal and state courts differ in the types of cases that they typically handle. According to the United States Courts website, federal court cases deal with the constitutionality of a U.S. law while state courts deal with most criminal cases and contract cases. Washington, D.C. is neither a U.S. state nor territory, but the D.C. Superior Courts are analogous to other state courts.
Within the legal system, the case against Howard circulated through the courts before receiving a federal appeal. After being filed in the D.C. Superior Court, the university moved the case from state to federal court. At the end of March 2022, the alumni moved to return the case back to state court for reconsideration. In May 2022, the university issued a motion to dismiss the case which was granted by the District Court.
The alumni challenged this dismissal by arguing against federal jurisdiction in this case, asserting that it should fall under state law. Ultimately, this all culminated in the alumni’s victory in the federal appeals court.
Since the 1867 charter, the history preceding this lawsuit can be traced back to several university events. According to an alumni September press release, in 1924, alumni representation on the board began. Subsequently, student positions were placed on the board in 1970 following the student-led protests of 1968, which was headed by plaintiff Jenkins.
The lawsuit says from 2004 until November 2021, Article 1, Section 2, of the board’s bylaws declared that out of 35 members of the Board, “Three shall be designated as Alumni Trustees, two as Faculty Trustees, and two as Student Trustees.”
The 2021 amendment of the bylaws revoked this designated membership, which Temple alleges was done “without the full membership of the board.”
Issues for the alumni began during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the elections of stakeholders were frozen during this time, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs allege that during the timeframe of April 2020 to June 2021, six representatives were not reelected, even though re-elections are scheduled every three years.
Temple attributes these limitations as the reason why the affiliate positions were later removed. He elaborated on this stance, stating that during the time period when students, faculty and alumni were absent from the board, the bylaws were changed.
Outside of the reinstatement of all trustee positions, the plaintiffs stated in the same September press release that they also want to achieve more with a court win. This includes shared representation in the university’s governance process and for the board to disclose their minutes, which are sealed for 25 years.
Copy edited by Camiryn Stepteau
