(Source: MIRS.news, Published 02/03/2025) The University of Michigan (U-M) is facing a federal lawsuit challenging the university's ban on people who participated in pro-Palestine protests. 

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court on behalf of four current and former students and a Ypsilanti resident, challenges the constitutionality of a new anti-disruption policy. 

"For the simple act of using a megaphone to direct participants in a recent on-campus protest, campus police issued me a trespass ban that barred me from not only attending classes, but from stepping foot on any property within the entire U-M system," said plaintiff Jonathan Zou, a second-year undergraduate student enrolled in the university's College of Engineering. 

"While my ban has recently been amended to finally allow me to return to class, I'm still forbidden from participating in protests and students organizing meetings, attending lectures and events, and meeting professors, classmates, and friends in person," he said.  

Kay Jarvis, director of public affairs for the university, said the university has not been served with the lawsuit. 

"We have no comment at this time," she said. 

In the last 16 months, Zou and others have attended protests and other gatherings in support of Palestine on campus.  

Under current U-M policies, a campus police officer can issue a person a trespass ban — which they euphemistically call a "warning" — without ever having to produce evidence that the recipient violated the law or university policies, said the plaintiffs' attorneys, the ACLU of Michigan and the Sugar Law Center for Economic & Social Justice. 

The bans can prohibit access to parts of the campus, the whole campus or, in some cases, any campus within the entire U-M system.  

Generally, the ban lasts a year, but ACLU representatives said university officials have recently begun to extend some bans for even longer without explanation.  

Those challenging the ban face "sham proceedings" that lack due process protections, according to the lawsuit. 

The lawsuit also challenges a recently adopted university policy that prohibits on-campus "disruptions."  

The lawsuit alleges the university has not defined what activity constitutes a "disruption," and as a result, it has intensified the chilling effect of the trespass bans by threatening even more punishment of people wishing to exercise their constitutional rights.  

As with the trespass bans, the lawsuit challenges the anti-disruption policy as vague and overbroad in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.  

"The Constitution does not permit any public institution – whether it's the White House or the University of Michigan – to crush expressions of dissent," said Loren Khogali, executive director of the ACLU. "Our lawsuit is an important measure to defend the constitutional liberties of those who wish to protest today and those whose rights will need protection tomorrow."  

Liz Jacob, staff attorney for the Sugar Law Center, said the university is "weaponizing campus trespass bans in an attempt to target, attack, and silence the speech of protesters who bravely raise their voices in support of Palestine."