Article Media
Today, the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, the Center for Protest Law & Litigation, and civil rights attorney Thomas Seabaugh filed a lawsuit against the University of California Santa Cruz for banning more than 100 students and faculty members from campus after they were arrested at a pro-Palestine protest this past May.
“The bans were incredibly punitive and profoundly unfair,” said Rachel Lederman, Senior Counsel with the Center for Protest Law & Litigation. “They went into effect on the spot, instantly cutting students and faculty off from classes, jobs, and other school resources, such as meal plans and health care. On-campus residents were rendered homeless. Academic performance suffered.”
The bans were also “unconstitutional and overbroad, depriving students and faculty of their due process rights,” said Chessie Thacher, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California. “UCSC issued these bans en masse without making the findings required by law. Officials used Penal Code section 626.4 to justify their actions, but UCSC’s own actions violated that very statute, as well as long-standing California Supreme Court precedent.”
On the night of May 30, UCSC officials sent in over 100 law enforcement officers dressed in riot gear to clear a pro-Palestine encampment that had formed at the base of campus in an unpaved parking lot. Students and faculty who were not directly involved in the encampment came out to observe, protest the deployment of militarized police, and support the encampment’s message.
In addressing the crowd, police officers gave unclear or inaudible dispersal orders and used violent policing techniques. “The officers forced us together so tightly that some of us were dry heaving from batons being thrust violently into our abdomens,” said Plaintiff Christine Hong, who is a professor of Critical Race and Ethnic Studies and Literature at UC Santa Cruz. “Officers in full riot gear grabbed people by the neck. Some people were later hospitalized.” UCSC police arrested people who allegedly failed to disperse, placing them in zip-tie handcuffs and holding them for hours without access to a bathroom.
Officers also appeared to subject every person who had been arrested to Penal Code section 626.4, which permits school officials to “withdraw consent” to remain on campus for up to two weeks. By law, however, a school must normally provide a hearing before kicking a person off campus, unless the individual poses a substantial threat of significant injury to persons or property. The university made no such findings here.
Instead, UCSC officers handed out identical form notices to those arrested. When the stack of forms ran out, officers began banishing people verbally. Some people were banned without getting either written or verbal notice.
The bans subjected students to tremendous hardship. Elio, a plaintiff in the case and a UCSC undergraduate, was rendered homeless, cut off from their on-campus job, and unable to go to a long-planned on-campus doctor’s appointment, which delayed important medical treatment to the fall. “It was terrible to miss that appointment and be cut off from my home, the library, and my notes,” said Elio. “This all happened during final exams and, even though I had been on the honor roll for the last two quarters, I struggled to complete my coursework and my grades really suffered. ”
Laaila, another plaintiff and UCSC undergraduate, was also banned. “I was a Resident Assistant living and working in campus housing so the ban was devastating,” said Laaila. “I failed my school courses as I could not access my computer, attend classes, or complete assignments.”
As the 2024-25 school year begins, students are worried UCSC will double down on its overbroad use of Section 626.4 bans. "I fear that the school will continue to target and punish me because of my student activism,” said Laaila. “The possibility of these bans affecting my employment and future looms large. I have considered taking a gap year due to my distrust in the institution and the fear of retaliation.”
“It’s time to hold UCSC accountable for its illegal use of Section 626.4 campus bans against students and faculty as a tool of censorship,” said attorney Thomas Seabaugh. “Our clients did not engage in conduct that posed a threat of significant injury to anyone or anything. Banning them on the spot was not just heavy-handed, it was unconstitutional and a violation of basic democratic rights and academic freedoms. We’re suing to ensure that in the coming school year, UCSC officials comply with the law and respect the constitutional limits on their power to ban students and faculty from campus.”
University of California President Michael Drake has announced that in the 2024-2025 school year, the University will strictly enforce restrictions on protest to maintain “orderly operations” on campus. Today’s filing asks the court to prevent UCSC from banning students, faculty, or staff without the findings and protections required by the constitution and California law.
Read student and faculty accounts of the protest and its aftermath here.
