In December I described the basics of Jen Harris's federal lawsuit against Rene Portland and Penn State. Last week the defendants filed the briefs supporting their motions to dismiss. As promised, here is an overview of what those briefs argue.

The legal arguments are fairly described as "technical," but that description has no pejorative meaning here. At this point, technical legal arguments are all that can be presented. Right now, the defendants cannot submit any evidence or factual information to deny Harris's claims — they'll have an opportunity to do that later.

It's important to note that the defendants are not asking the court to dismiss the suit entirely. Rather, they are only seeking to have certain claims and certain remedies discarded.

For example, Penn State does not argue that the court should dismiss Harris's race discrimination claim under Title VI or her sex discrimination claim under Title IX. (It does, however, argue that she is not entitled to injunctive relief or punitive damages for those claims.) Nor does PSU make any attack on Harris's claim that by failing to enforce its own discrimination policy, the university violated its scholarship agreement with Harris.

Portland, for her part, makes a broader attack on the claims against her. But she too leaves some untouched. For example, Portland does not argue that the Section 1981 race discrimination claim against her should be dismissed.

In short, even if the district court were to grant these motions in their entirety, the lawsuit would still go forward — it would just be trimmed down.

Without seeing NCLR's response, and without doing quite a bit of research, it's difficult to predict how much of the case will get thrown out. My initial sense is that the defendants have some good arguments and some not-so-good arguments. For example, their argument that Harris lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief (as opposed to monetary damages) seems plausible. On the other hand, Portland's argument that Harris's "gender stereotyping" claim should be thrown out because it's really about "perceived orientation" seems less plausible, especially at this stage in the proceedings.

So I think it's reasonable to expect that these motions will be granted in part and denied in part.

Finally, I note that there is a major difference in tone between Penn State's filing and Rene's filing. Penn State's brief reads more like a calm and considered legal analysis. By contrast, Portland's brief reads more like a political screed.

Portland characterizes Harris's complaint as a "blunderbuss pleading" that "grossly overreaches" and aims to "create new social policy." She claims that much of the suit is simply "designed to advance a non-party organization's political agenda." She says that the "real purpose" of the suit is to "elevate perceived sexual orientation to a fundamental substantive due process right."

She argues that "university coaches should be able to exert a measure of control over their teams without a federal court looking over their shoulder and second-guessing team-related decisions and statements."

Those types of statements — and the difference between Portland's tenor and Penn State's — might give some us indication of how this case will be fought.