Federal judge rules against University of Maryland’s Oct. 7 vigil cancellation

The federal court ruled that the University of Maryland Students for Justice in Palestine’s vigil scheduled for October 7th can move forward. This comes after the University of Maryland unconstitutionally banned all student-led expressive events for an entire day.

Read the amicus brief filed by a coalition of free speech organizations in support SJP’s lawsuit, and here’s a link to the court’s decision.

“Courts don’t take preliminary injunction requests lightly, but it was as clear to the court as it was to our coalition that UMD’s blanket ban would have constituted a serious and irreparable burden on student speech,” said Alex Morey, FIRE’s Vice President of Campus Advocacy. “Students have a First Amendment right to speak on their public campus on October 7th, and UMD’s effort to delay that speech to a day that’s more convenient for them was, plain and simple, unconstitutional.”

“The right to engage in free exchange of ideas on campus is not a right that can be taken away because people in power do not want to hear them,” said Nick Taichi Steiner at ACLU of Maryland. “Universities must foster an environment where all students feel able to express themselves, their opinions, and their emotions. UMD denied that to the Students for Justice in Palestine and violated their First Amendment rights. We’re grateful for the court’s decision to overturn this viewpoint and content-based ban.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations and Palestine Legal filed a federal lawsuit on Sept. 17 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of the student group, the University of Maryland’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter, challenging the university’s cancellation of the vigil.

The suit accuses the University of Maryland, the University System of Maryland Board of Regents and Dr. Darryll Pines, president of the University of Maryland, College Park, of “engaging in unconstitutional content-based discrimination.”

The hearing on an injunction will be before U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte in Greenbelt, Maryland.

Pines and the University System of Maryland released letters on Sept. 1 canceling all student-led “expressive events” scheduled for Oct. 7, which they said would be replaced by university-sponsored activities “dedicated to discourse and reflection” at the University of Maryland and all other universities in the Maryland system.

“The First Amendment does not allow campus officials to establish free-expression black-out days, even on occasions that may be emotional or politically polarizing,” said Gadeir Abbas, CAIR’s national deputy litigation director.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Maryland, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief Wednesday in support of the University of Maryland’s Students for Justice in Palestine’s lawsuit. The free speech organizations argue that the Oct. 7 restriction is an unconstitutional and unreasonable attempt to “silence speech about Israel and Palestine.”

The student group’s leadership told Capital News Service that their Oct. 7 event planned to include teach-ins, student speakers, interfaith prayers and a vigil.

“By canceling our event, the University of Maryland has continued to deliberately erase the Palestinian perspective from campus,” Daniela Colombi, a board member for the University of Maryland’s Students for Justice in Palestine, said. “We are horrified beyond words at the obstruction of the advancement of equality, justice and liberation.”

The University of Maryland’s Students for Justice in Palestine requested and received approval on July 31 to host an “awareness event” on Oct. 7 on McKeldin Mall, a focal point of the College Park campus. Two days later, after the reservation was publicly listed in the university’s student registration system, the university administration requested to meet with the student group, the lawsuit says.

In an Aug. 19 meeting with Pines and Dr. Patricia Perillo, vice president for student affairs, board members from the student group explained the purpose of the event. Pines and Perillo asserted that “they had been receiving pressure from groups inside and outside the university to cancel UMD-SJP’s reservation, but they are committed to protecting the free speech of students,” according to the lawsuit.

“You are likely to see and hear expressive activity on campus on issues you may or may not agree with…as a public institution, we cannot discriminate on the basis of content or viewpoint, and must therefore allow such groups to be heard,” Pines said in an Aug. 26 letter to the campus community.

The university continued to receive backlash from some pro-Israel groups in the following days.

A petition started by End Jewish Hate calling on the University of Maryland to rescind its permission garnered nearly 30,000 signatures, according to the lawsuit. On Aug. 28, Perillo told the student group that parties outside the university were concerned the event would “glorify violence,” the lawsuit says.

On Sept. 1, university administrators revoked the University of Maryland’s Students for Justice in Palestine’s Oct. 7 reservation, citing student safety concerns.

The lawsuit claims that the campus-wide bans were based on a viewpoint issue, challenging the legal basis that Pines provided in his Sept. 1 letter.

The lawsuit uses Pines’ own words from the Sept. 1 letter to argue that the university system violates the First Amendment. Despite emphasizing safety concerns, Pines said that he “requested a routine and targeted safety assessment for this day” and the University of Maryland Police Department assured him that “there is no immediate or active threat to prompt this assessment.”

The University of Maryland Police Department and the University of Maryland’s Office of the President declined to comment on the lawsuit. Mike Lurie, the University System of Maryland’s media relations and web manager, told CNS that “the University System of Maryland does not comment on pending litigation.”

Gene Policinski, a senior fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum, told CNS that for the University System of Maryland’s ban to be constitutional, the defendants will have to prove that their decision was based on significant safety concerns, rather than the student group’s views and that an alternative method of expression would be provided.

Rabbi Ari Israel, executive director of Maryland Hillel, told CNS: “We believe the university emphasized being thoughtful about student safety and are appreciative of the university’s decision regarding student gatherings on October 7th.” He also expressed gratitude for Pines and the administration’s “supportive leadership as Jewish life and Maryland Hillel continue to thrive on campus.”

The University of Maryland’s Jewish Student Union and Terps for Israel told CNS that while they “respect all parties’ right to pursue legal actions,” they believe “the university’s decision to cancel all events for both groups was the best decision under the circumstances.”

The University of Maryland’s Students for Justice in Palestine’s board members told CNS that they worry this ban, if unchallenged, would set a precedent, inhibiting pro-Palestinian speech for students across the country.

“As UMD-SJP, we have a responsibility to our fellow peers at this university and to students nationwide to stand up for our collective and constitutional rights to free expression,” Colombi said.

Reactions to the ban from student groups and officials have been mixed.

“We are relieved that SJP will no longer be able to appropriate the suffering of our family and friends to fit their false and dangerous narrative,” the Jewish Student Union, Israeli American Council, Maryland Hillel and Terps for Israel said in a joint statement on Instagram. “While we are reassured by this decision, we are distraught that it had to be made at all. We wish that we could have utilized campus space to grieve together as a community.”

Policinski said judges often defer to school administrators “because they’re balancing the rights of others’ First Amendment rights in the process of education.”

“These (cases) are often very, very fact-dependent on the specific circumstances on campuses, but any time speech is restricted, I think it merits a very close look at, what the lawsuit mentions, very strict scrutiny,” he said.