Major Legal Developments This Week: A UFC Fight at the White House; an important legal change for the EEOC; and the Nebraska Tuition Ruling--

From a lawsuit targeting a UFC event at the White House to a significant federal opinion on Title VII and a court decision on immigration-related tuition benefits.

This week, we review a desperate lawsuit by liberal activists to stop the UFC event taking place on Sunday at the South Lawn of the White House. We also evaluate a significant opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice that corrects the EEOC’s unconstitutional interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. And finally, we provide insight into the invalidation of Nebraska statutes that sought to give illegal immigrants in-state tuition benefits in violation of federal law.

Image by Getty Images

Lawsuit seeks to KO the White House UFC fights.

Backed by a liberal public interest group, two activists have sued the Trump Administration, demanding a D.C. federal district court stop “UFC Freedom 250” which is to be held at the South Lawn of the White House on June 14, 2026.

In short, two activists allege the event, which will require temporary structures, violates federal law and National Park Service (NPS) Regulations. They also allege that the structures for the event cause them “aesthetic injury” by diminishing their “personal enjoyment, experience of beauty, and feelings of national pride.” They further claim that the event is “hideous” and “disgusting.”

The Trump Administration has filed this opposition to the plaintiffs’ temporary restraining order. It notes that the event has been planned for nearly a year but the plaintiffs chose to wait until the very last moment to try to shut the event down. It observed that site has been prepared and the temporary structure is in place to host more than 4,000 spectators on the South Lawn. Athletes have trained for months and will be traveling from all over the world to fight in this event. And yet all this planning could be dashed “by the whim of two people who believe they have superior taste and want to spoil the event for everyone else.”

The Trump Administration also observes that the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the event because their only alleged injury is “aesthetic harm,” and D.C. Circuit case law provides that the “mere incidental viewership” of something objectionable is insufficient for standing. Moreover, the plaintiffs’ legal claims fail on the merits. The NPS has issued temporary amendments to regulations that exempt the events planned in celebration of the 250^th Anniversary of American Independence – which would include UFC Freedom 250. In fact, these types of events happen all the time – such as Elton John’s 2022 performance at the South Lawn at the White House before President Biden and a crowd of 2,000 people.

The district court will likely deny plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order before Sunday’s fights. This is a ludicrous case even by D.C. standards.

OLC provides important opinion on discrimination claims—ignore race!

We have another step toward making our systems “race-blind.” Recently, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Department of Justice was asked by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) whether the “disparate impact” provisions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “are constitutionally interpreted and applied, particularly by the EEOC in its interpretive rules and guidance documents.

Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating in employment based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” This statute has been interpreted not only to prohibit intentional discrimination but to prohibit practices that “have a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities (known as ‘disparate impact’).” Ricco v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009). What is that??

As Justice Antonin Scalia said in 2009, the disparate impact provisions of Title VII “place a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.”

The OLC answered that question in a June 9, 2026, memorandum opinion. Consistent with Justice Scalia’s observations, the OLC concluded that “EEOC’s Title VII guidelines are unconstitutional because they contemplate liability based on disparate effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, and pressure employers to engage in race-based decision making.”

For those employees challenging an employer’s business practices, they must establish the challenged “practice specifically caused the alleged disparate impact and provide evidence that an equally effective alternative practice causes less disparate impact.”

In effect, this corrects the unconstitutional EEOC interpretation of Title VII, provides guidance to those seeking to sue employers for racial discrimination, and eases the burden on employers who, historically, have tried to avoid Title VII “liability through race-based decision making.” Perhaps now, employers can focus on merit-based promotions and hiring.

Image by Craig Chandler

Nebraska can no longer give in-state tuition benefits to illegal immigrants.

A Nebraska federal district court has granted a consent judgment that orders Nebraska laws that “extend eligibility for in-state tuition benefits to aliens unlawfully present in the United States violate the Supremacy Clause and are invalid.” As part of that consent judgment, Nebraska is “forever restrained” for enforcing the portions of its subject laws “that extend eligibility for in-state tuition benefits to aliens unlawfully present in the United States.”

This order was issued after the United States sued the State of Nebraska, challenging four provisions in Nebraska law “that extend eligibility for in-state tuition benefits at Nebraska post-secondary education institutions to aliens resident in the state who are not lawfully present in the United States while denying such benefits to United States citizens from other states.”

The Nebraska Attorney General agreed with the position of the United States that these the Nebraska statutes were preempted by federal law. In its memorandum, the court noted: “The Nebraska statutes establishing residence requirements for illegal aliens to obtain in-state tuition, while leaving United States citizens from other states to pay full out-of-state tuition, blatantly violate the federal law” as set out in the Immigration and Naturalization Act.