ANN ARBOR, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – The University of Michigan (U-M) is back in the national spotlight – this time getting sued for banning Palestinian protesters from almost all areas on the Ann Arbor campus. The ACLU has responded by jumping in with a lawsuit that was jointly filed with the Detroit-based Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice (SLC) in federal court on behalf of five pro-Palestinian protesters.

The defendants in the lawsuit include U-M President Santa Ono, Executive VP and CFO Geoffrey, Executive Director of U-M’s Division of Public Safety and Security Eddie Washington and U-M Chief of Police Crystal James.

Campus crackdown or common sense?

MORE NEWS: Michigan’s Overhead Costs on Research Will be Nearly $400M This Year

The lawsuit, filed last week, argues that U-M violated students’ First Amendment rights by barring them from campus after they were involved in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. The university, however, insists that the protesters were trespassing and violated campus policies.

According to the ACLU’s press release, these bans are overly broad and an unconstitutional overreach. The university claims it’s just trying to maintain order. The ban restricts the plaintiffs to attending class or receiving medical care only.

The lawsuit states that the trespass bans have upended individuals “daily lives, disrupted their education and work, and are blocking their ability to speak and protest freely on the University’s vast campus.” The individuals are urging the federal court to revoke their bans and block the university from imposing sweeping trespassing restrictions in the future.

Selective outrage or legitimate concern?

Loren Khogali, Executive Director of the ACLU of Michigan, said about the lawsuit: “As we see heightened attacks on our civil rights and liberties across the nation, the ACLU will remain vigilant in its fight to protect the rights of all people as we have for more than 100 years, including the right to speak out on university campuses and in all public spaces.”

She went on to say, “The Constitution does not permit any public institution – whether it’s the White House or the University of Michigan – to crush expressions of dissent. Our lawsuit is an important measure to defend the constitutional liberties of those who wish to protest today and those whose rights will need protection tomorrow.”

What’s next?

If history tells us anything, this case will likely drag out in court, costing the university a nice chunk of change while student activists continue to test the boundaries of what “free speech” means at U-M.