Federal Court Blocks University of Maryland’s Unconstitutional ‘Expressive Event’ Ban
ACLU, FIRE, and Knight Institute say decision is an important victory for students’ First Amendment rights
BALTIMORE —A federal court ruled today 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 on that day.
Last week, 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 in support of University of Maryland Students for Justice in Palestine's lawsuit challenging the ban on First Amendment grounds. The free speech organizations argued that the university's ban is unconstitutional because the restriction singles out speech based on its message and fails to meet the high bar therefore required by the First Amendment to justify it.
"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 for American-Islamic Relations and Palestine Legal represent the University of Maryland Students for Justice in Palestine, which initially received university permission to host a vigil on the anniversary of October 7 to mourn lives lost in Gaza over the past year. However, after facing complaints about the event and the sponsor, the University of Maryland revoked its permission. The university subsequently instituted a blanket ban on all student-led “expressive events” for October 7, and declared that the university system would allow only “university-sponsored events that promote reflection.”
“This is an important victory for free speech,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It’s unfortunate, though, that it took a federal lawsuit to reaffirm the rule that the First Amendment prohibits public universities from censoring speech based on disagreement with its message or the offense it may cause."
The groups’ amicus explained that this ban is a clear effort to silence speech about Israel and Palestine — and SJP’s message in particular — because the university limited it to a uniquely salient day, and was only declared after others voiced their displeasure with the vigil. The amicus also explains that, even if the ban were not focused on burdening particular messages, it would still be unreasonable, both because it would undercut the public university's core function of encouraging free debate and open dialogue, and because it would be impossible to discern what kinds of events are allowed on UMD campuses that day and what are not.
“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."
Related Documents
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.