The constitutional right to speak and protest freely is fundamental to a well-functioning democracy, particularly at public universities where diversity of thought, civic engagement, and vigorous debate about ideas and world events are supposed to be encouraged. Unfortunately, in recent months that core principle seems to have been forgotten by the University of Michigan, where campus police have arrested pro-Palestine protesters, forcibly cleared a student encampment using batons and pepper spray, aggressively pursued criminal charges, and have even banned some protesters from the entire campus.
The university’s aggressive, heavy-handed response to protesters is not letting up. That’s why the ACLU of Michigan, along with the Sugar Law Center for Economic & Social Justice, filed a federal lawsuit against the University of Michigan to stop them from arbitrarily banning people from campus as a result of their participation in pro-Palestine protests.
We are representing students, alumni, and local community members who received notices from campus police suddenly banning them from university grounds after they attended a protest. These bans, which the university euphemistically calls “warnings,” immediately prohibited them from stepping foot on the university’s vast campus for an entire year under threat of criminal prosecution for trespassing—all because a police officer accused them of engaging in minor misconduct during the protest, such as using a megaphone or crossing the street. (Two of them were, in fact, banned from all three of the University’s campuses!) They were never given any explanation or evidence supporting their full-campus ban, and they never had a chance to participate in a fair and impartial hearing to contest the ban. Instead, they were immediately banished from their community based on a mere allegation by an individual police officer.
These bans have, understandably, upended the lives of our clients. Beyond blocking their participation in future protests, the bans have also kept them from attending class and on-campus jobs, studying in on-campus libraries, and doing a variety of essential daily errands and activities.
Why This Matters
It’s not hard to understand why the university’s practice of banning people from campus is fraught with problems. Here’s why:
- Chilling effect on protesting: The prospect of effectively being suspended from the university or kept from stepping foot on campus grounds will likely lead to people deciding not to exercise their First Amendment rights on campus. Attendance at protests and other events may dwindle.
- Access to public places: In a free society, the government should not be allowed to simply banish people from spaces that are designed to be open to the public without extremely compelling reasons, which haven’t been provided here.
- Lack of due process: In general, police officers are issuing trespass bans like they are a traffic ticket: based on that individual officer’s mere allegation, and without the need to seek approval from anyone else. But unlike a traffic ticket, a trespass ban kicks that person off campus immediately and only allows them to appeal their ban after they’ve been banned. And here’s the kicker: if the recipient appeals their ban, the person deciding their fate is none other than the issuing officer’s supervisor: the campus police chief.
Essentially, students or community members can be totally banned from all University of Michigan campuses and effectively barred from engaging in lawful activities because of an accusation by a single police officer that an individual engaged in misconduct – even if no evidence is ever put forth to corroborate the allegation, and even if the alleged misconduct is minor and could never be a reasonable basis for banishing someone from what is essentially the central town square for their entire community for a year.
The Case of Jonathan Zou
As indicated by the dire repercussions endured by some of our clients in this case, the practice can have a far-reaching and extremely harmful impact. The hardships experienced by Jonathan Zou are a prime example.
Mr. Zou, a second-year undergraduate student at U of M, was issued a full-campus trespass ban after participating in a pro-Palestine protest in October 2024. He was initially barred from setting foot on the Ann Arbor campus for a full year, except to go to class. However, without explanation, the campus police informed him the next day that they were expanding his ban to all three of the University’s campuses and without the allowance to go to class. His “crime”? Mr. Zou was accused of excessive “noise amplification” by using a megaphone at a protest. Even with the assistance of an attorney, Mr. Zou’s first appeal was rejected, rendering him unable to go to class for weeks as finals season quickly approached. After missing weeks of classes, his second (and final) level of appeal of the trespass warning resulted in his ban being amended to allow him to attend classes. But he was still prohibited from being on any U of M campus for any other reason, including attending protests and organizing meetings, as well as accessing university dining halls, where he had an unlimited meal plan that he relied on for a majority of his meals.
Why This is a Betrayal of the University’s Mission
The unfairness and excessively punitive nature of the university’s response to pro-Palestine protests is abundantly clear. Using overly harsh methods to punish people in such a draconian way denies them their rights and threatens to quell their willingness to protest. It is also an abandonment of the university's mission, which includes being a place where students can develop critical thinking skills by testing their ideas and learning from each other – even when doing so is challenging, uncomfortable, or confrontational.
Ramis J. Wadood is a staff attorney at the ACLU of Michigan.