Alpha Sigma Phi's national organization is making legal history—but whether it's making progress is another question entirely.
The fraternity announced in January 2026 that it plans to sue its former Rutgers University chapter members over an October 2025 incident that left a 19-year-old student critically injured, per a report from NJ.com. Anti-hazing advocates are calling it groundbreaking: the first time a college fraternity has sued its own members over alleged hazing. But the move has also sparked skepticism from legal experts and hazing attorneys who question whether this represents genuine accountability or strategic self-preservation.
The incident occurred at the fraternity's New Brunswick chapter house, where the student was found unresponsive and rushed to the hospital. The national organization closed the chapter after investigating and finding evidence of what it called hazing, though conflicting accounts exist about what actually happened that night. Nearly three months later, the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office has yet to file criminal charges, though its investigation continues.
The lawsuit will target not only members directly involved in the alleged hazing, but also anyone who saw messages in the chapter's GroupMe, knew what was planned, and failed to intervene. It's an aggressive approach that has drawn praise from some advocates—but raised concerns from others about a national organization weaponizing civil litigation against students who haven't even been criminally charged yet.
A Shield Disguised as a Sword?
David Bianchi, a hazing attorney with Stewart Tilghman Fox Bianchi & Cain who has represented victims' families in some of the nation's most high-profile hazing cases, said he has never seen a lawsuit like this before—and his initial reaction is one of skepticism rather than celebration.
"You have to ask: what is the fraternity hoping to achieve, other than just sending a loud and clear message to fraternity members everywhere that you may be getting sued by the national headquarters as well?" Bianchi said to NJ.com.
That first question cuts to the heart of the matter: what damages does the national fraternity claim the Rutgers members caused? After all, in civil litigation, plaintiffs must demonstrate that they suffered concrete harm. What exactly has Alpha Sigma Phi's national organization lost that warrants suing its former members?
Bianchi's experience with fraternity defendants has him looking beyond public statements to the strategic motivations behind legal actions. "There are plenty of people who are going to be pointing the finger at the national headquarters of this fraternity because of what this chapter did," he explained.
That observation reveals the uncomfortable reality that national fraternity organizations often face in hazing litigation: despite their policies prohibiting hazing and their public denunciations of these dangerous traditions, they can be held liable for injuries that occur at their chapters. National organizations provide the charter, collect dues, oversee leadership training, and maintain relationships with local chapters—all factors that can establish legal responsibility when something goes wrong.
Bianchi suggested that the national organization "may have decided that the best way to get in front of this is to be proactive and to assert, on their own behalf, claims against the offenders." In other words, by positioning itself as a plaintiff rather than waiting to be named as a defendant, Alpha Sigma Phi may be attempting to control the narrative and demonstrate to future juries that it, too, was a victim of rogue chapter members who violated clearly established policies.
More troubling still, Bianchi noted that the fraternity might use information gathered through this lawsuit to try to reduce monetary damages it could be required to pay to the victim and his family. Civil discovery could allow the national organization to build its defense strategy while publicly appearing to seek accountability.
The Question of Damages
Bianchi's skepticism about Alpha Sigma Phi's lawsuit hinges on a fundamental question: who is the real victim here?
The 19-year-old student who was critically injured is undoubtedly the only victim. His family, facing the emotional trauma and potentially ongoing medical costs associated with his injuries, are victims. But what damages has Alpha Sigma Phi's national organization suffered that would justify a civil lawsuit?
By framing itself as a victim of its own members' misconduct, the national organization may be attempting to distance itself from responsibility—to argue that it did everything right, established clear policies, provided proper training, and was betrayed by members who violated those policies.
It's a legal strategy, but it's not accountability.
Real accountability would mean acknowledging how national organizations contribute to hazing culture. It would mean examining whether the organization provided adequate oversight of a chapter house that city officials declared uninhabitable due to safety violations just days after the incident. It would mean asking why the "robust" anti-hazing policies that every Greek organization claims to have in place failed to prevent yet another student from being critically injured.
Beyond Press Releases and Legal Maneuvers
While Alpha Sigma Phi makes headlines with its unprecedented lawsuit, the fundamental problems within Greek life remain unchanged. As Bianchi noted in his recent commentary on a hazing death at Northern Arizona University, over 100 fraternity pledges have died as a result of hazing in the United States since the year 2000—approximately one every four months.
New Jersey took a meaningful step forward in 2021 with Timothy J. Piazza's Law, which toughened penalties for hazing within fraternities and other student groups. But laws and lawsuits will only matter if they translate into genuine cultural change within Greek organizations—and genuine accountability when that culture fails to protect students.
The Rutgers case presents a critical test. Will Alpha Sigma Phi's lawsuit prove to be a turning point in how national fraternity organizations address hazing within their ranks? Or will it be remembered as a calculated legal maneuver designed to shield a national organization from the consequences of a culture it helped create?
For the injured student and his family, those questions may matter less than the more fundamental one: will anyone truly be held accountable for what happened that October night? Our firm certainly hopes so.