Judge refuses to stop the suspension of a pro-Palestinian demonstrator from the UT

A judge has denied a University of Texas student’s request for a temporary restraining order against a three-semester suspension he received after school administrators accused him of disruptive behavior, incitement and disobeying orders during a pro-Palestinian protest on April 24, according to an order signed Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman denied the motion because the student had “not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of prevailing on his First Amendment claim” to support a restraining order, which he said is considered an extraordinary intervention.

The verdict comes afterwards Pitman granted student groups status to file a sweeping lawsuit against multiple Texas institutions, including UT, alleging position discrimination. Pitman ruled that prosecutors have a good chance of proving compliance with the free speech policy Governor Greg Abbott’s executive order in March Requiring universities to enforce policies against pro-Palestinian groups to protect against anti-Semitism violates the First Amendment. The Council on American-Islamic Relations called that decision “a major victory for anti-genocide protesters across the country.”

Ammer Qaddumi does sue UT President Jay Hartzell and former Provost Sharon Wood after he was arrested and April 24 demonstration. Qaddumi is a member of the steering committee of the Palestine Solidarity Committee – a student group affiliated with the national Students for Justice in Palestine that the April 24 protest at UT in solidarity with others detained on college campuses across the country to call on their institutions to get rid of weapons manufacturers contributing to Israel’s war in Gaza.

Qaddumi claims in his lawsuit that the defendants illegally engaged in prior restraint, regulated the speech from strict scrutiny because of its content, and retaliated against him because of the speech’s content. Qaddumi asked the judge to intervene in his suspension, arguing that it would cause irreparable harm to his educational activities, after an initial restraining order was dismissed during his disciplinary proceedings due to there was no definitive action against Qaddumi at that time.

Although Pitman said Qaddumi sufficiently demonstrated the harm his suspension would cause, the lawsuit did not adequately “apply the legal standards” applicable to the three alleged First Amendment violations and therefore declined to award damages “at this stage of the process”.

In Qaddumi’s second request for a restraining order, he said a Student Conduct Board initially found him guilty only of failing to comply with an order after an eleventh-hour hearing, deciding to downgrade his disciplinary action to a deferred suspension and a mandatory ethics course. given the disproportionate weight of the (university’s proposed) sanctions compared to the underlying policy violation,” the hearing said. It added that Qaddumi has no documented history of misconduct and “did not and does not pose any threat to members of the university community.”

The university appealed the student council’s decision, citing a “substantial procedural error” on the board’s alleged failure to address Qaddumi’s alleged refusal of police officers’ instructions during the protest, and the appointed appeals officer awarded the desired disciplinary measures by the UT, saying that Qaddumi was guilty of disruptive behavior and encouraged disruptive behavior.

In response to the restraining order, the defendants called the request for temporary relief “a misguided attempt” to prevent the university from holding Qaddumi “accountable for his blatant violations of the university’s content-neutral rules,” adding that they believe his claim that the university’s cancellation of the April 24 protest was a violation of his First Amendment rights without merit.

“Staff’s cancellation notice and instructions were lawful in light of the reasonable likelihood that PSC’s event would materially disrupt the University’s operations, as was their express intent, and would violate policy,” the response said . “If Qaddumi truly believed the cancellation was incorrect, ultimately the appropriate course of action would have been to appeal the decision under UT Austin’s institutional rules.”

UT declined to comment and instead referred the Statesman to its response in the court documents.

In response to the judge’s order, Qaddumi filed an amended complaint about the suspension on Friday, to which the defendants will respond by November 13.

Qaddumi’s complaint says UT’s disciplinary actions are “unlawful retaliation” that were “maliciously administered with intent to injure him.” Qaddumi said he cooperated with officers at their request to communicate their dispersal directives, but was arrested on trespassing charges. dismissed the next day for lack of evidence.

The lawsuit is against the university, Hartzell and Wood in their individual capacities, and Hartzell in his official capacity for declaratory and injunctive relief “against further violations.” Qaddumi also asks for “permanent injunctive relief.”

Qaddumi’s attorney did not immediately return a request for comment Monday.