Victory for student privacy: Court rejects Illinois’ ‘magic words’ demand
A federal court rejected Illinois’ attempt to force organizations to expose their members’ identities—including minors—when challenging discriminatory government programs, clearing the way for Pacific Legal Foundation’s fight against race-based scholarships.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois denied the state’s motion to dismiss in American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Pritzker, allowing the constitutional challenge to Illinois’ racially discriminatory scholarship program to move forward.
This victory doesn’t just advance this one case—it reinforces crucial protection for students and other vulnerable plaintiffs who need to challenge government discrimination without exposing themselves to potential retaliation.
Illinois excludes students based on race
The case challenges Illinois’ Minority Teachers of Illinois scholarship program, which awards up to $7,500 annually in taxpayer-funded college scholarships to aspiring teachers—but only if they belong to specific racial minority groups. Students of other backgrounds, no matter how qualified or deserving, cannot even apply.
AAER brought this lawsuit on behalf of its Illinois members, whom the state bars from these educational opportunities solely because of their race. Among them is a young woman referred to as “Member A.” She has dreamed of becoming a teacher since third grade, maintains strong grades, and meets every qualification for the scholarship except one: her skin color.
Rather than defending their discriminatory program on its merits, Illinois tried a different approach: They argued that organizations can sue on behalf of their members only if they reveal those members’ legal names in court documents. According to the state, using a pseudonym like “Member A”—no matter how detailed the description of the individual—doesn’t suffice to establish what lawyers call “associational standing.”
In essence, Illinois claimed that legal names serve as “magic words” that alone can confer the right to challenge government discrimination in court. This position would have devastated students, particularly minors, who need to challenge discriminatory policies but shouldn’t have to sacrifice their privacy to do so. As the complaint detailed, Member A was a minor when the case was filed, making Illinois’ demand for name disclosure especially troubling.
Court rejects ‘magic words’ theory
The court firmly rejected Illinois’ argument, ruling that “Article III standing does not hinge on the use of a member’s legal name.” Instead, the court found that “at the motion to dismiss stage, a complaint need only provide ‘general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct,’” which PLF’s detailed description of Member A clearly satisfied.
This ruling protects a fundamental principle: You shouldn’t have to choose between challenging government discrimination and protecting your privacy. The decision recognizes that requiring name disclosure could deter legitimate constitutional challenges, particularly from students and other vulnerable populations who might face retaliation.
The ruling also demonstrates that courts will look beyond procedural gamesmanship to focus on the substance of constitutional claims. Rather than getting bogged down in debates about “magic words,” the court recognized that AAER’s detailed factual allegations more-than-sufficiently established standing.
The fight continues for equal treatment
With Illinois’ motion to dismiss defeated, the case now moves to the next phase. The state will have to defend its racially exclusionary scholarship program on the merits.
PLF senior attorney Erin Wilcox called the decision “a critical step forward in holding Illinois accountable for its blatant race-based discrimination. The state cannot sidestep constitutional limits by insisting on magic words in court filings while it openly excludes students from opportunities based solely on their skin color.”
This victory also sets an important precedent for future cases involving student privacy and associational standing. Organizations can continue to protect their members—especially minors—while still pursuing meaningful constitutional challenges to discriminatory government policies.
