Judge Strikes Historical Allegations from CUNY Anti-Semitism Lawsuit

A judge granted a motion to strike paragraphs 34 through 46 from the third amended complaint in a lawsuit filed against City University of New York. The paragraphs outlined the historical origins of the state of Israel beginning in Biblical times and continuing through events in the Roman empire to the present day. Plaintiff Avraham Goldstein filed the complaint on January 9, 2026.

He is employed as an assistant professor at the Borough of Manhattan Community College. " Goldstein asserts claims for religious and national origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York Civil Rights Law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of due process and equal protection.

He identifies as an Israeli citizen, an Orthodox Jew, and a Zionist. The court evaluated the motion under Rule 12(f), which permits striking material that is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. The decision stated that evidence regarding the history of the Jewish state, including events from several thousand years ago, has no bearing on whether the plaintiff was subject to discrimination or retaliation on the basis of his nationality or religion.

"Requiring Defendant to either admit or deny allegations regarding historical events that took place in 136 C.E. would serve no purpose," the decision said. The court added that certain paragraphs contained controverted and charged contentions regarding the creation of separate Israeli and Palestinian states, and requiring a response would be prejudicial.

The struck material began with statements that the Jewish people originated in the Middle East and established their homeland in the Biblical Land of Israel. " The text continued through the period of foreign empires, the rise of Zionism in the 1800s, the British Mandate after World War I, the 1947 United Nations partition plan, Israel's declaration of independence in 1948, and the subsequent war.

The court left in place statements that "Plaintiff is a Zionist by dint of his religion and his national origin" and that "Zionism is the movement for the re-establishment, and now the development and protection, of a sovereign Jewish nation in its ancestral homeland.

The ruling means the defendant will not be required to respond to the historical allegations in the complaint. The discrimination and retaliation claims will proceed without that material.