A Washington D.C. federal court has set aside a default judgment against Georgetown University in a case brought by Samantha Murphy. Murphy, who is representing herself, alleged that the university violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act by not having a test-optional admissions policy. The court's decision allows Georgetown to respond to the claims, which could have significant implications for the university's admissions practices.

The case, Murphy v. Georgetown University, was filed on August 11, 2026, under Civil Action No. 2025-2995. Murphy claims that the lack of a test-optional policy disadvantages neurodivergent candidates like herself. The court's ruling not only impacts Murphy but also sets a precedent for how universities handle admissions policies regarding students with disabilities.

Background

Samantha Murphy filed her lawsuit against Georgetown University and its Law Center in September 2025. She argued that the university's admissions practices violate federal laws designed to protect individuals with disabilities. Specifically, she contended that the absence of a test-optional policy creates barriers for neurodivergent applicants.

After Murphy attempted to serve the university with her complaint via certified mail, she moved for a default judgment when Georgetown did not respond within the required timeframe. The Clerk of Court entered a default against the university, prompting Georgetown to file a motion to set aside that default, claiming improper service.

The Ruling

Judge Loren L. AliKhan presided over the case and granted Georgetown's motion to set aside the default. The court ruled that Murphy had not properly served the university, stating, "In the absence of proper service, Georgetown’s failure to respond to the complaint could not have been willful." The judge emphasized that the university was under no obligation to respond to a complaint that was not properly served.

The court also noted that setting aside the default would not prejudice Murphy, as the case was still in its early stages and no discovery had yet taken place. Judge AliKhan remarked, "Ms. Murphy will not be prejudiced by setting aside the default, giving her the opportunity to effect proper service." The ruling allows Georgetown to defend itself against Murphy's allegations.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for both Murphy and Georgetown University. By allowing the university to respond to the claims, the court opens the door for a broader discussion on admissions policies and their impact on neurodivergent students. If Georgetown's policies are found to be discriminatory, it could lead to changes in how universities across the country approach admissions for students with disabilities.

Moreover, the case highlights the importance of proper legal procedures in civil rights litigation. The court's decision reinforces the necessity for plaintiffs to adhere to service requirements, regardless of their status as pro se litigants. This ruling may serve as a reminder to other individuals pursuing similar cases that procedural compliance is crucial for their claims to proceed.

What's Next

Following the court's ruling, Murphy must properly serve Georgetown University and the Georgetown University Law Center by October 13, 2026. If she fails to do so, her case could be dismissed. The outcome of this case may also influence future litigation involving disability rights and higher education admissions.