ADL’s “Legal Action Network” Is Hindering Real Legal Action Against Growing Antisemitism
ADL’s massive advertising campaign gives the public the impression that it is leading the legal fight against antisemitism. In truth, it has become an obstacle.
The Anti-Defamation League’s new partnership with Gibson Dunn to form a so-called “Legal Action Network” may sound promising, but in practice, it is doing more harm than good.
On paper, this looks like an urgently needed effort to strengthen the Jewish community’s legal response to antisemitism. ADL’s CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said about the network, “this is a way for us to go from defense to offense.”
According to Reuters, “the newly formed Legal Action Network complements an existing campus antisemitism helpline, CALL, that Gibson Dunn and the ADL created in 2023, and which Gibson Dunn partner Orin Snyder said has since fielded more than 1,000 complaints from students and faculty from over 260 schools in 39 states.”
On the surface, it sounds impressive. Given their high-profile announcements and a large advertising budget, surely ADL must be at the forefront of developing good case law for victims of antisemitism, having filed many lawsuits, right?
Unfortunately, no. Despite its enormous resources, collecting 1,000 complaints, and working with Gibson Dunn, a powerhouse litigation firm, ADL has filed very few* on behalf of victims of antisemitism in recent years. Despite marketing itself as the go-to place for reporting incidents, victims who reach out are not guaranteed to be connected to a lawyer — let alone one who will take their case to court.
I know about ADL’s lack of lawsuits from public records, but I also know firsthand. I’m one of the attorneys who volunteered to provide pro bono legal services on antisemitism cases. I’m located in the Bay Area, a location where there has been pervasive antisemitism in high schools since October 7, 2023, but I’ve received zero referrals. Other than the initial communication from Gibson Dunn when I was thanked for signing up for the network, I’ve received no communication about the legal network whatsoever. I’ve asked how many referrals ADL has made and how many lawsuits ADL has filed, but received no response.
Looking more closely, ADL’s website contradicts their very offer of a “Legal Action Network,” stating in the terms and conditions that “ADL will evaluate your incident report and determine whether further action by ADL is appropriate. ADL makes no promises or guarantees regarding whether ADL will take any action in your matter, or regarding the outcome of your matter.” From its lack of public litigation record, it appears that the ADL counsels people away from legal action, preventing legitimate claims from reaching lawyers capable of litigating.
From the outset, this partnership looks built for optics far more than action. The primary value Gibson Dunn offers the ADL in this context is its name recognition and prestige. Gibson Dunn is not on the forefront of filing antisemitism cases. Granted, the firm occasionally notches a high-profile win on the plaintiff’s side, but those cases are the rare exception. In reality, the firm is overwhelmingly devoted to the defense side on behalf of large corporations and powerful institutions.
What the fight against antisemitism requires are local lawyers on the ground — attorneys who can respond quickly to violations in schools, universities, and public agencies before those matters ever rise to the amount of national attention that would interest Gibson Dunn. The reliance on Gibson Dunn only underscores how ill-suited the ADL is to lead any serious litigation effort.
There is a deeper concern that may explain why so few antisemitism-related discrimination cases are brought against school districts, despite clear evidence that unlawful discrimination is occurring: centralizing the intake of these complaints within a single large nonprofit concentrates power in one legal strategy that may be ineffective. This approach forecloses the opportunity for independent lawyers and smaller organizations to test a variety of legal theories—creating the kind of “laboratory of the states” environment that often produces stronger, more innovative strategies.
ADL’s arrangement may itself raise legal issues. Under California law, entities that collect complaints and direct them to specific lawyers or firms can constitute an illegal referral service. Perhaps intuitively, this is the very problem with the ADL’s latest effort: too much control, too little accountability, and no track record of actually filing cases.
Recent events show why grassroots action matters. When four Bay Area school districts abruptly canceled scheduled talks by Luai Ahmed — a pro-Israel, gay Muslim whose views challenge the “oppressor vs. oppressed” narrative embedded in Ethnic Studies curricula — it was a textbook case of viewpoint discrimination. Those decisions, made independently by multiple districts, reveal systemic bias against pro-Israel perspectives in public education.
Rather than waiting for ADL or Gibson Dunn to act, the Jewish Community Advocacy Council (JCAC) a Jewish legal aid foundation I recently founded, stepped in immediately and filed suit against the school districts for violating the First Amendment. A responsive legal strategy is needed to force schools to comply with the law, and our community needs more victims to be brave enough to come forward to bring complaints when illegal antisemitism occurs.
ADL’s massive advertising campaign gives the public the impression that it is leading the legal fight against antisemitism. In truth, it has become an obstacle: absorbing the energy, attention, and potential plaintiffs who could otherwise turn to those ready to litigate. If ADL refuses to represent victims of antisemitism in court, it should stop marketing itself as the place to report antisemitism.
To fight antisemitism effectively, we need decentralized, independent advocates who will take action. ADL can help us fight antisemitism in the court of public opinion. Real change won’t come, however, from a partnership between a public relations giant and a corporate defense firm. It will come from those willing to show up in court and enforce the law.
Correction 12-4-2025 7:20 p.m. Eastern – This sentence originally said has “not filed any lawsuits” which has been corrected.
Mark L. Javitch is a California attorney offering pro bono services to victims of antisemitic discrimination through the Jewish Community Advocacy Council (“JCAC”). Follow him on X and sign up for JCAC updates.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
History repeats itself. That’s where we got all the secondary gun rights organizations such as GOA, SAF, and FPC: NRA would be presented with local second amendment activism, would at best ignore it entirely, and it worst sandbag it and try to see it defeated– then when it passed, they would take all the credit for the campaign.
Welcome to GOA-hood, professor.
Who is paying to have these reports buried?
No one’s paying for it. As Henry said just above, we saw the same with the NRA. No one was paying the NRA to sandbag 2A litigation; it was doing so quite well on its own.
Thank you! We’ll written.
The only thing the ADL is good for is polling and even then it doesn’t do it itself but hires third parties.
Leave a Comment