VASEL FOR IUVasel v. Braun
Challenging the constitutionality of eliminating alumni-elected trustees at Indiana University.
Both sides have now asked the judge to decide the case in their favor without going to trial. The Governor has fourteen days to file his final written argument. We've also asked the Court to schedule a hearing so both sides can present their arguments in person. Once all the written arguments are in, the judge will either hold that hearing or make a decision based on the written filings alone.
Latest Filings — February 10, 2026
On February 10, I filed my written response to the Governor's arguments and my final arguments in support of my own request for the court to rule in my favor. In the brief, I argue that I have the right to bring this lawsuit as an IU alumnus who lost the ability to vote for trustees, push back on the Governor's claim that the legislature had good reasons to single out IU, and explain why the State's attempts to compare IU to other schools based on funding differences and controversies miss the point of what makes this unconstitutional special legislation.
The filing includes a sworn statement from Pat Shoulders, a former IU trustee who served both as a governor's appointee and as an alumni-elected trustee. Shoulders speaks to the unique value that alumni-elected trustees bring to board governance—a perspective I argue cannot be replicated by having the governor appoint all the trustees.
I also filed a request asking the court to schedule a hearing so both sides can present their arguments in person, rather than having the judge decide the case based on the written filings alone.
Case Overview
On May 7, 2025, I filed suit as lead plaintiff in Vasel v. Braun, challenging the constitutionality of eliminating alumni-elected trustee positions at Indiana University. The case is supported by the ACLU of Indiana, whose legal team is representing me in this action.
The lawsuit argues that the Indiana legislature violated the state constitution by singling out Indiana University for the elimination of alumni input in board governance, while leaving similar structures intact at every other affected public university.
CASE NUMBER
53C06-2505-PL-001288
COURT
Monroe Circuit Court 6
JUDGE
Special Judge Erik C. Allen
PLAINTIFF
Justin A. Vasel
DEFENDANT
Governor Michael Braun (official capacity)
PLAINTIFF'S LEGAL TEAM
Kenneth J. Falk (Lead), Stevie J. Pactor, Gavin M. Rose — ACLU of Indiana
DEFENDANT'S LEGAL TEAM
James A. Barta, John P. Lowrey, Katelyn E. Doering, Lauren R. Labaumbard — Office of the Indiana Attorney General
What I'm Challenging
HEA 1001, Sections 253 through 266, singled out Indiana University for the elimination of alumni-elected trustees. No other public university in Indiana was affected in this way.
Ball State University, Indiana State University, Purdue University, and the University of Southern Indiana all retain some form of alumni input in their board governance. Only IU was targeted.
We argue this violates Article 4, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution, which prohibits the legislature from passing "special legislation" that singles out specific entities for treatment that differs from others similarly situated.
Key Legal Questions Before the Court
Does an IU alumnus who lost the right to vote for trustees have standing to challenge the law? The Plaintiff argues that the elimination of a concrete, established voting right is a cognizable injury.
Did the legislature create an impermissible classification by singling out Indiana University for the elimination of alumni-elected trustees while leaving identical governance structures intact at other public universities?
Even if IU can be treated as a distinct class, has the Governor demonstrated that the differential treatment is reasonably related to the characteristics that distinguish IU from other public universities?
If the law is unconstitutional, what is the appropriate remedy? The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction enjoining the Governor from filling trustee seats by appointment until three positions are restored through alumni elections.
What We're Seeking
- •A declaratory judgment that HEA 1001, Sections 253-266, constitutes unconstitutional special legislation
- •A permanent injunction to restore alumni-elected trustee positions at IU—specifically, the Governor would be enjoined from appointing additional trustees until three positions are filled through the restored alumni election process
Case Timeline
HEA 1001 Passed in Indiana House and Senate
The Indiana House and Senate pass House Enrolled Act 1001, which includes provisions (Sections 253-266) eliminating alumni-elected trustee positions at Indiana University.
HEA 1001 Signed into Law
Governor signs House Enrolled Act 1001, which includes provisions (Sections 253-266) eliminating alumni-elected trustee positions at Indiana University.
Lawsuit Filed
Justin Vasel files Vasel v. Braun in Monroe Circuit Court with support from the ACLU of Indiana, challenging the constitutionality of singling out IU for the elimination of alumni-elected trustees.
Amended Complaint Filed
An amended complaint is filed. The motion for preliminary injunction is voluntarily withdrawn.
Motion to Dismiss Filed
Defendant Dallis-Comentale files a motion to dismiss and memorandum in support.
Summary Judgment Briefing Begins
Plaintiff files opposition to the motion to dismiss. Defendant files a reply in support. Plaintiff files a motion for summary judgment with a supporting memorandum.
Defendant Dallis-Comentale Dismissed
The court grants the motion to dismiss defendant Dallis-Comentale from the case.
Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment
Governor files cross-motion for summary judgment and response to Plaintiff’s motion.
Plaintiff’s Response/Reply Filed
Plaintiff files combined Response/Reply memorandum on the cross-motions for summary judgment, along with new evidentiary materials and a motion requesting oral argument.
Court Decision
The Governor's reply brief is the final submission before the court takes the cross-motions under advisement.
Broader Significance
This case tests the application of Indiana's special legislation doctrine in the context of university governance. It raises fundamental questions about whether the legislature can single out one university for the removal of established stakeholder governance structures while leaving identical structures in place at peer institutions.
The outcome could have implications beyond IU, establishing how courts evaluate legislative actions that target specific public institutions without a rational basis for differential treatment. The Plaintiff's briefing places particular emphasis on preventing the legislature from circumventing the special legislation prohibition by defining classes so narrowly that each institution is its own class -- an argument with potentially broad application across Indiana law.
Stay Updated on the Case
Get notified when there are new developments in Vasel v. Braun and the broader effort to restore alumni voice at IU.