Federal lawsuit claims FSU Law officials discriminated against student over Russian origin

A verified civil rights complaint filed in federal court in North Florida alleges Florida State University College of Law officials targeted a student over perceived Russian national origin and English ability, then changed her academic status without due process. The plaintiff says she still completed her LL.M. and graduated cum laude.

Why it matters: - The lawsuit tests how far a public university can go before constitutional protections for equal treatment and due process kick in. - The case alleges race- and national-origin-based bias inside a state law school, plus administrative action taken without notice or a chance to respond. - The complaint says the challenged decisions affected a student’s enrollment, course access and expected graduation path.

What happened: - Elena Dvoinik filed a verified federal civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. - The case is Dvoinik v. Busch et al., No. 4:26-cv-00369, and was filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. - The complaint names four Florida State University College of Law officials and alleges violations of the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause. - Dvoinik says she was born in Russia, applied to FSU Law as a citizen of Ukraine and became a naturalized U.S. citizen before classes began in Fall 2023. - The complaint says FSU reviewed her Naturalization Certificate, confirmed her enrollment and recognized her as an admitted LL.M. student before the disputed events. - The lawsuit says the disputed actions began after Fall 2023 classes and final exams ended.

The details: - The complaint says internal emails obtained through Florida public-records requests show Legal Writing instructor Christopher Busch described Dvoinik as Russian and questioned her English ability. - Busch allegedly wrote that Dvoinik said English was her “2nd/3rd/4th language,” that she “still thinks in Russian,” and that she mentally translates between Russian and English. - The complaint says Busch also claimed her English-language difficulties were “so profound” that she could not properly read, analyze and apply legal materials. - Dvoinik says she never made those statements and that she communicated with Busch only in English. - The complaint says Busch’s Dec. 12, 2023 email was the first time any university official questioned her admission, academic qualifications, English-language ability or LL.M. participation. - The lawsuit says senior administrators discussed the email the next day in private, without notifying Dvoinik or giving her a chance to respond. - The complaint says no defendant contacted Dvoinik before decisions were made about her academic status. - The lawsuit says officials then proposed English-language remediation, more legal-writing instruction, curriculum changes and delaying her expected graduation. - The complaint says Professor Cecelia Smith told Dvoinik on Jan. 17, 2024, in front of classmates, that she could no longer stay in Advanced Legal Writing because she was “a foreigner who did not understand English.” - The complaint says Smith appeared surprised when Dvoinik said she was a naturalized U.S. citizen who spoke English fluently, and Smith said, in substance, that Associate Dean Nancy Benavides had told her to remove Dvoinik from the course. - The lawsuit says Dvoinik was administratively withdrawn after the university’s add/drop deadline, without prior written notice or a meaningful chance to challenge the decision. - The complaint says that withdrawal blocked her from enrolling in another Spring 2024 course. - Dvoinik says Florida State University never revoked her admission, never found her academically or linguistically unqualified, never placed her on academic probation and never started disciplinary proceedings. - The complaint also says FSU never required formal English-language remediation through an academic process. - Dvoinik completed all LL.M. requirements and graduated cum laude on May 6, 2024.

Between the lines: - The complaint frames the dispute as a constitutional case, not an academic-performance dispute. - The public-records allegations are central because they suggest the university acted after internal staff communications, not after a formal review with Dvoinik included. - The case could add pressure on public universities to document language-based concerns carefully and provide process before changing a student’s standing.

What’s next: - The defendants have not yet filed a response. - The court has not ruled on the merits of the claims. - The complaint seeks declaratory relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages where allowed, attorney’s fees and costs, and a jury trial.

The bottom line: - The lawsuit asks whether a public law school crossed constitutional lines when it acted on perceived national origin and English ability without giving the student notice or a chance to defend herself.