NCLA Site Search

Cases

Lujan v. U.S. Department of Education

CASE SUMMARY

The Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowship was established to support and promote U.S. students to conduct doctoral research in foreign countries using a foreign language. The Department of Education evaluates applicants on a 105-point scale, with language proficiency counting for 15 points. Starting in 1998, the Department began to use the language-proficiency criterion to disadvantage U.S. students whom the Department deemed to be “non-native-born” by assigning them 0 out of 15 points for language proficiency if they acquired the relevant foreign language through their national heritage.

Samar Ahmad and Edgar Ulloa Lujan are doctoral candidates at Georgetown University. Ms. Ahmad was born in Kuwait and grew up speaking Arabic. Mr. Lujan grew up in Juarez, Mexico, speaking Spanish since childhood. The Department of Education penalized the Plaintiffs’ applications for not satisfying the fellowship’s foreign-language-proficiency requirement, even though they are fluent in Arabic and Spanish, respectively.

Being ineligible for 15 out of 105 possible points presents an insurmountable barrier to obtaining the Fulbright-Hays Fellowship award, so the regulation directly undermined the program’s purpose of international openness and exchange by reducing the number of highly proficient foreign-language speakers in the United States. Nothing in the Fulbright-Hays Act authorizes the Department of Education to penalize U.S. students who speak a foreign language as part of their national heritage for the purpose of awarding financial scholarships. Students with immigrant heritage have a constitutional due process right to be free from the Department’s blatant and un-American discrimination.

OUR CLIENT

Edgar Ulloa Lujan, Plaintiff

OUR TEAM

Sheng Li
Litigation Counsel
John J. Vecchione
Senior Litigation Counsel

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Order Clarifying Scope of Preliminary Injunction

April 3, 2023 | Read More

Motion to Clarify or Amend Injunctive Order

March 31, 2023 | Read More

Memorandum Opinion and Order

March 24, 2023 | Read More

Reply Brief in Support Of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

February 7, 2023 | Read More

Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction

January 3, 2023 | Read More

SEE 11 FILINGS
PRESS RELEASES

Federal Judge Grants Injunction to NCLA Client, Vacates Dept. of Ed.’s Discriminatory Fulbright Rule

March 27, 2023 | Read More

Dept. of Education’s Fulbright-Hays Application Includes Discriminatory “Native Language Penalty”

January 4, 2023 | Read More

U.S. Dept. of Education Alters Discriminatory Fulbright Application Process in Response to NCLA Suit

July 22, 2022 | Read More

NCLA Files Lawsuit Against Discriminatory Dept. of Education Rule for Fulbright-Hays Fellowships

May 10, 2022

CASE HIGHLIGHTS

RELATED CASES
  • Adir International v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: California

    View Case
  • American Home Furnishings Alliance, et al. v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 30, 2023

    Agencies: Consumer Product Safety Commission

    View Case
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Walther, Dir., and Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    View Case
  • American Hospital Association, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 15, 2022

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services

    View Case
  • American Securities Association and Citadel Securities LLC v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Unreasonable Searches

    The Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless searches and seizures of information, yet the Administrative State violates this right to privacy through administrative subpoenas and warrants, automated information collection devices, civil investigative demands, and “voluntary” requests for information.

    Conditions on Spending

    Administrative agencies use unconstitutional conditions on spending to regulate the conduct of grantees. Rather than rule through law, the government simply purchases submission.

    Case Active - February 15, 2024

    Agencies: Securities and Exchange Commission

    View Case
  • AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC and FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Federal Trade Commission

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.