A legal battle between the University of Michigan and eight former students and alumni took a critical turn this week, as a federal judge considered a motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by these individuals. The plaintiffs, who were dismissed from their jobs at the university, argue their terminations were linked to their involvement in protests urging the university to divest from Israel.
The heart of the lawsuit centers on the university’s claim that the plaintiffs violated the institution’s code of conduct during demonstrations in fall 2023 and spring 2024. The university’s legal counsel, Brian Schwartz, presented arguments highlighting what he described as “ample evidence” of the plaintiffs’ “violent conduct” at protests held at the Ruthven Administration Building and the University of Michigan Museum of Art (UMMA).
However, John Philo, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs and executive director of the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice, refuted these assertions. “We are destroying the meaning of that word by using it in this context,” Philo stated, emphasizing the peaceful nature of the protests. “There were not broken windows. There were not punches.”
The university further argued for dismissal on the grounds that the plaintiffs no longer face harm from their terminations, stating, “Because Plaintiffs’ claims related to future employment are contingent on future harm that may not occur, these claims should be dismissed.”
In contrast, Philo contended that the university’s actions, particularly the notation in termination letters citing a violation of the “Violence in the University Community” policy, suggest an ongoing impact. “If it doesn’t matter, then the university wouldn’t put it in the records. They’re putting it in there for a reason,” Philo argued, indicating the potential for lasting repercussions on the individuals involved.
Among the plaintiffs is Eaman Ali, a May 2025 graduate who planned to continue her campus employment into the summer. Ali, present at the hearing, voiced skepticism about the university’s position, remarking, “I felt like a lot of these technical arguments were trying to obscure the reality of the situation, and of why this case was even brought forward.”
The decision now rests with Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III, who maintained an unbiased stance, promising a determination “pretty soon.” The outcome could set a precedent for how similar cases are approached in the future, with Philo warning, “Everyone needs to understand that if we’re going to use [the phrase] ‘violence’ in this context, then it has no meaning. And what it means is you can punish people for their speech anytime, anywhere.”
While a spokesperson for the University of Michigan declined to comment on the ongoing litigation, the case continues to draw attention for its implications on free speech and employment rights within academic institutions.
Editor’s note: The University of Michigan owns Michigan Public’s broadcast license.
