Pro-Palestine Student Group in Florida Sues University System to Prevent Unconstitutional Deactivation
University of Florida’s Students for Justice in Palestine is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Florida, and Palestine Legal
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – The University of Florida chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (UF SJP) filed a lawsuit today challenging the Chancellor of the State University System of Florida’s order to state universities to deactivate the student group. Contrary to recent media reports, the deactivation order remains in place today.
In response, the lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction to block the deactivation order from going into effect, arguing that Chancellor Ray Rodrigues and Gov. Ron DeSantis’ decision to effectively punish local student groups for their association with a national group is a clear violation of the constitutional rights to free speech and association.
“As students on a public college campus, we have every right to engage in human rights advocacy and promote public awareness and activism for a just and reasonable solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict” said the University of Florida’s Students for Justice in Palestine. “We know we have First Amendment rights in school and we’re bringing this lawsuit to make sure the government doesn’t silence us or others like us.”
For decades, students have participated in and benefited from the marketplace of ideas on college campuses, particularly with respect to pressing and divisive social and political issues. And the Supreme Court has long recognized that right. As the complaint explains, the deactivation order violates UF SJP’s First Amendment freedoms by censoring its speech and association, and also runs afoul of the First Amendment’s protection against viewpoint-based restrictions on speech and association.
“Florida’s deactivation order against a Palestinian rights student group for exercising its free speech and association rights is a clear First Amendment violation,” said Hina Shamsi, director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “We hope our client’s brave decision to challenge state officials’ attempt to restrict student speech sends the strong message that censorship in our schools is unconstitutional. There should be no question that independent political advocacy — no matter its viewpoint — is fully constitutionally protected.”
The looming deactivation order has already cast a significant chill on UF SJP’s organizing and advocacy activities in support of Palestinian rights, at a time when the catastrophe in Israel and Palestine is a matter of vital public discourse. If enacted, the order will also deprive the group and its members of critical university resources and facilities necessary for the survival and operation of the organization on campus.
“If Florida officials think silencing pro-Palestinian students protects the Jewish community – or anyone, they’re wrong. This attack on free speech is dangerous: today it is pro-Palestinian students, tomorrow it could be any other group the governor’s dislikes,” said Howard Simon, interim executive director of ACLU of Florida. “We recognize colleges are contending with how to manage increased threats and rising tensions on their campuses while keeping students safe — and we take the weight and complexity of these challenges seriously. But it is precisely in times of heightened crisis and fear that government officials, including Gov. DeSantis and University Chancellor Rodrigues, must remain steadfast in their obligations to respect free speech, open debate, and peaceful dissent on campus.”
This lawsuit comes amid a troubling rise in calls for schools across the country to censor pro-Palestinian students and student groups for “material support for terrorism,” without any evidentiary basis, along with other extreme and discriminatory proposals to cancel visas and deport international students who protest in support of Palestine.
“Throughout history, students have been central actors in ending segregation, war, and apartheid — and Students for Justice in Palestine sits squarely in that tradition. It is precisely because these principled students pose a challenge to the status quo that they are being targeted with McCarthyist censorship, but the First Amendment simply does not allow for it,” said Dima Khalidi, founder and director of Palestine Legal. “As the humanitarian crisis in Gaza unfolds, we can't let elected officials and university leaders stigmatize groups speaking out for Palestinian human rights. The voices of SJP chapters are more important than ever."
Free Speech
+2 Issues
Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida v. Raymond Rodrigues
Free Speech
+2 Issues
Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida v. Raymond Rodrigues
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.