Judge lifts suspension of Students for Justice in Palestine at University of Pittsburgh

A federal judge on Thursday lifted a suspension against a pro-Palestinian student group at the University of Pittsburgh, finding that the speech they engaged in leading up to the suspension was protected by the First Amendment.

U.S. District Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan granted a motion seeking a preliminary injunction for Pitt’s Students for Justice in Palestine against the university.

In his decision, Ranjan said that the rules cited by university officials in handing down the suspension were too broad and violated the students’ rights.

“The public interest will be served by increasing the level of association and speech on campus,” Ranjan said.

The court’s decision means that the student group, which had been suspended for six months — slated to lift on Sept. 18 — can immediately begin holding campus events, recruit new members and continue fundraising to support relief efforts in Gaza.

The problems between the group and university officials began on Dec. 9, when students participated in what it called a “study-in” overnight at Hillman Library in Oakland.

The group members draped flags across the tables and wore keffiyehs to express solidarity with the Palestinian people.

Pitt police officers shut down that protest. The administration later filed disciplinary charges against the organization.

Following a hearing on Feb. 4, Students for Justice in Palestine wrote an open letter to university officials — including the three employees on the hearing board — calling on Pitt to drop the charges against them.

The letter was signed by 70 community and university organizations.

Because the letter went to the three hearing officers, Pitt’s administration filed additional charges against Students for Justice in Palestine alleging that they were trying to influence the disciplinary process.

Although charges regarding the library protest were not sustained by the university, charges were upheld regarding the open letter.

Interim suspension

Pitt leadership issued an interim suspension to the student group in March. The suspension was later modified by Pitt to last six months. It is scheduled to lift on Sept. 18.

The group, through the ACLU of Pennsylvania, sued the university in federal court in April alleging that that disciplinary action violates the students’ First Amendment right to free speech.

On Thursday, Ranjan heard oral argument from the two sides on the students’ request for a preliminary injunction that would block Pitt officials from continuing to impose the suspension.

Until the punishment lifts, Students for Justice in Palestine is forbidden from holding events, recruiting new members or even reserving space on campus for future programming.

During the hearing, ACLU attorneys argued that the suspension is causing irreparable harm to the group as the new school year starts at Pitt.

They also argued that the open letter sent by Students for Justice in Palestine was protected free speech. While it was meant to influence university officials, they said, it was not meant to corrupt the disciplinary process.

Free speech debate

“What’s at issue here is run-of-the-mill speech,” said ACLU attorney Solomon Furious Worlds. “Speech that was meant to influence.

“But all speech is meant to influence.”

Pitt’s administration chose to suspend the student group over the content of the message, he said.

“Pitt as a government entity restricted SJP’s speech by suspending them,” Worlds told the court.

That violates their free speech rights.

But Attorney Joshua W. B. Richards, who represented Pitt during the hearing, argued that the content of the open letter was not protected speech.

Instead, he claimed that Students for Justice in Palestine were engaged in “coercive, intimidating conduct to persons deciding the facts.”

“The sanction is based on conduct and the severity of the conduct. The letter violated the rules,” Richards said.

He told the court an injunction was no long necessary, noting that Welcome Week on campus has already concluded.

“There has to be imminent harm,” to grant an injunction, he said. “We don’t have that here.”

Ranjan disagreed, noting that it is the beginning of semester when students recruit others to join their organizations.

In his opinion, the judge said that Pitt made a good point that the suspension was based on the need to protect the integrity of university conduct hearings.

“Indeed, to the Court’s eye, this was unquestionably Pitt’s driving force behind the original charge and suspension, not any sort of animus towards SJP and its viewpoint,” he wrote.

However, he continued, the public interest must be governed by “a more refined and tailored rule.”

In his decision, Ranjan urged the parties to settle their fight, writing that the entire dispute could have been handled differently.

“On one hand, SJP should have used better judgment and made sure not to copy the hearing officers on the email at issue while the hearing was pending,” he wrote in his three-page opinion. “On the other hand, Pitt likely didn’t need to charge SJP over it, given that the email was more of a rhetorical piece and played no role in the initial disciplinary decision.

“Hindsight’s 20/20. But it may be time to ratchet things down and get back to campus for a fresh start to the academic year.”

‘It’s about the First Amendment’

Mia Suwaid, a co-president of Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Pittsburgh, said after the hearing that she hopes they can continue their work as soon as possible.

“Now is the time to be protesting, organizing and calling on our government to end its role in these atrocities,” Suwaid said. “Yet its suspension of our organization has stripped us of the very tools we need to do that work. We are barred from holding events, denied the ability to recruit very interested new members and prevented from raising our voices against Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people.”

Worlds said after the hearing that the end goal of the litigation is to protect students’ free speech rights.

“This case is about SJP,” he said. “It’s about the First Amendment, and it’s about all students at the University of Pittsburgh and frankly, across the commonwealth, to be able to speak — to be able to have their universities not silence their voices.”