Adelphi Student Wins AI Plagiarism Lawsuit

Back in October, we examined the case of Orion Newby, a student at Adelphi University who filed a lawsuit against the school after being accused of using AI to plagiarize an essay.

Now, according to Maura McDermott of Newsday, the judge in the case has found the allegations against Newby to be “completely false” and has ordered the school to reverse its disciplinary action against him.

Mark Lesko, an attorney representing Newby described the result as “groundbreaking.” This is not without cause. Historically, courts, especially in the United States, have been reluctant to overturn school decisions on academic or research integrity.

So, what made this case different from so many others before it? The answer comes down to the type of dispute: it was more about what happened than about what constitutes an academic integrity violation.

Background of the Case

As part of his fall 2024 coursework for World Civilizations 1, Newby submitted a paper on Christianity and Islam. The course’s professor, Micah Oelze, ran the paper through Turnitin’s AI detector, which flagged it as wholly AI-generated.

However, Newby staunchly denied this. According to both him and his parents, he has been treated since he was 2 years old for learning and neurological differences and worked with Bridges to Adelphi, a university-provided program that provides tutors and assistance to students with such issues.

Despite that, both Oelze and the school declined to reexamine the allegations. The case was considered a “nondisciplinary” punishment, even though he received a zero for the assignment and was ordered to take an anti-plagiarism course. Furthermore, a second offense could have resulted in his suspension or expulsion from the school.

According to Newby’s parents, these factors left them with “no choice” but to file the lawsuit after the school denied his appeal.

The judge in the case sided fully with Newby, saying that the decision to punish Newby was “without valid basis and devoid of reason.”

The judge has ordered the school to undo its disciplinary action and expunge Newby’s record.

The school declined to comment on the case but said that it is “evaluating the court’s decision.”

The decision has been described as groundbreaking by Newby’s attorney, Mark Lesko, and I am inclined to agree. Historically, US courts have been very reluctant to intervene in cases of academic or research integrity.

However, one important detail makes this case somewhat unique. This was never a dispute about academic integrity, but a question of fact.

The Difference Between Facts and Law

Courts typically answer two types of questions: Questions of fact and questions of law.

To understand the difference, let’s use a simple example. If a person is arrested for trespassing, they have several defenses they could raise.

First, they could argue that they were not there and that this is simply a case of mistaken identity or that no one was there at all. This is a question of fact. If the defendant can raise sufficient doubt about the facts of the case, they can prove they did not commit the crime.

The second is that they could argue that they had a legal right to be there. Though they don’t dispute the facts as argued, they can argue that their actions did not constitute trespass under the law.

Academic integrity cases, such as Newby’s, have a similar distinction. There are questions of fact, what did the student allegedly do, and questions of academic integrity, did those actions amount to an integrity violation?

However, in most academic integrity cases, the questions of fact are relatively straightforward. For example, a plagiarism report can clearly show what material was copied. However, decisions about what constitutes a breach of academic integrity are more complicated.

For example, we might all agree that a sentence or two was copied without attribution. But was that an innocent mistake? Deliberate cheating? If it warrants punishment, what should that punishment be, and so forth?

These are tough questions, but courts have typically left them to the schools. The reason is simple. The schools set the standard; their faculty and staff are presumed to be the experts on those standards, and judges don’t feel they have much grounds to intervene.

However, Newby’s case is one of simple fact. Did he use AI to generate that paper? The school says yes, he says no. Both sides agree that generating a paper using AI would be a violation; the dispute is over what actually happened.

That, in turn, made a huge difference in this case.

What Went Wrong for Adelphi

As I said back in October, given Newby’s arguments, it should be easy to figure out what happened. You can interview the tutors, examine the files used to write the paper and so forth. Given the judge’s response, it seems unlikely that they did that.

The reason, it appears, is that the school viewed this as a nondisciplinary matter. This isn’t entirely uncommon. Schools often give instructors a wide berth when dealing with such matters if they are not taking any formal action against the student.

But the problem here is that the school absolutely was taking action against Newby. He received a zero on the assignment, he was ordered to take a class on plagiarism and, worst of all, could face suspension or expulsion if it happened again.

These are real consequences that could be life-altering. The school could have and should have examined the case more closely.

Though it’s unclear what case Newby made to the judge, it was obviously compelling. While I doubt the judge would have overruled the school on a question of what is or is not a violation of academic integrity, since this was an issue of fact, the judge stepped in.

By not considering potential evidence in Newby’s case, including two additional AI checks that said the paper was human-written, they left open a serious question of fact that made the lawsuit not just possible, but successful.

That is a powerful lesson schools need to learn, as cases like this are likely to become more, not less, common.

Bottom Line

Schools need to take this case to heart. While most students won’t be able to spend “six figures” to defend against a relatively minor plagiarism accusation, it’s important for schools to ensure students can respond to any allegations and provide evidence on their behalf.

Schools also need to understand that, while they are still the arbiters of what is and is not a violation of academic integrity, they can not ignore issues of fact. This is especially important when it comes to AI-related accusations.

This case most likely could have been avoided with a cursory examination. There were witnesses and likely physical evidence that could have laid bare what actually happened. While I understand the need to give instructors a great deal of leeway, especially in non-disciplinary cases, ignoring evidence is taking things several steps too far.

As for students, this case doesn’t change much. My advice from August 2025 still holds. Actively avoid using AI, even for polishing; communicate with your instructors; and use a tool like Grammarly Authorship or Turnitin Clarity to track and showcase how your paper was written.

Simply put, you most likely don’t have the ability to put up this kind of legal challenge against an academic integrity accusation. So the focus should be on avoiding such incidents in the first place.

It’s unfair that the onus is on students to prove their integrity, but that is the approach students need to take, especially when it comes to AI.