- A federal judge has issued an injunction ending campus bans for three protesters arrested for trespassing at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill during pro-Palestinian protests in 2024.
- At the same time, US District Judge Thomas Schroeder has agreed with the university to dismiss portions of the protesters' lawsuit.
- Three remaining plaintiffs can continue to pursue claims related to viewpoint discrimination and retaliation, along with excessive force and battery claims linked to their arrests.
A federal judge has issued an injunction ending the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s ban against three people involved in pro-Palestinian campus protests in 2024. At the same time, the judge has tossed out portions of the protesters’ lawsuit against the university.
US District Judge Thomas Schroeder issued two orders Wednesday in the case Dames v. Roberts. The dispute followed trespassing arrests in spring 2024 when campus police shut down a tent encampment erected near the campus administration building by the group Students for Justice in Palestine. Those arrests prompted the university to ban some protesters from campus for at least two years.
The Orange County District Attorney’s Office eventually dropped all trespass cases related to the tent encampment.
Five protesters initially filed a lawsuit in March 2025 with help from the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation, Emancipate NC, and Washington, DC-based Muslim Advocates. The plaintiffs asked in April 2025 for an injunction to end the campus bans. One protester eventually dropped out of the case, and one remaining plaintiff had her campus ban lifted last month when she re-enrolled at UNC-CH.
Campus bans remained in place for three plaintiffs: Duke University professor Emily Rogers, Duke student Laila Dames, and Meredith College student Kathryn Newman.
“Plaintiffs contend that their ban from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (‘UNC-CH’) campus following arrest for trespass violates the First Amendment,” Schroeder wrote in his injunction order.
“Plaintiffs contend that they would continue to participate in First Amendment-protected conduct on the open, outdoor spaces of the UNC-CH campus if not for their campus bans,” he added.
“[T]he bans continue to remain in effect nearly two years after the issuance of the Trespass Notices, with no end in sight,” Schroeder wrote. “According to Plaintiffs, they would otherwise have continued to gather on campus ‘to show solidarity with Palestinian lives and liberation,’ and still wish to do so, in a manner permitted by UNC-CH. Yet under the current bans, Plaintiffs remain unable to do so in the open, outdoor spaces of UNC-CH’s campus.”
“Further, Defendants have not proffered any basis for why this indefinite ban from a forum is reasonable for these Plaintiffs, who wish to engage in the continued demonstrations on UNC-CH’s open, outdoor spaces,” the order explained. “Apart from Plaintiffs being present when the tent encampment was dismantled, Defendants have not proffered any evidence that any Plaintiff personally engaged in the disruptive conduct that led to UNC-CH’s decision to disperse the protesters on April 30.”
“Ultimately, the indefinite duration of the bans, coupled with the absence of any standard governing whether to re-admit Plaintiffs onto the UNC-CH campus and the limited evidence of Plaintiffs’ specific involvement in alleged wrongdoing, renders the bans unreasonable as to these Plaintiffs under the limited facts of record in light the purpose of the forum,” Schroeder concluded.
In a separate order, Schroeder agreed with the university to dismiss portions of the protesters’ lawsuit. The complaint alleged: “(1) First Amendment prior restraint; (2) First Amendment viewpoint discrimination; (3) First Amendment retaliation; (4) Fourteenth Amendment due process; (5) Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest; (6) Fourth Amendment excessive force; (7) free speech claims pursuant to Article I, § 14 of the North Carolina Constitution; (8) common law battery; and (9) common law unlawful arrest,” he explained.
The judge agreed to dismiss the prior restraint, due process, and unlawful arrest claims. Other portions of the suit can move forward.
The UNC defendants enjoy qualified immunity against viewpoint discrimination and retaliation claims, Schroeder determined. That means they can’t be held personally liable. Yet they can be sued in their official capacity, meaning taxpayers could be on the hook if the plaintiffs end up prevailing at the end of the case.
“Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that their indefinite campus bans were not reasonable,” the judge wrote. “According to the standard Trespass Notices, the bans remain ‘valid indefinitely unless otherwise modified by the [UNC-CH] Police Department.’”
“Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that their indefinite campus bans were neither viewpoint neutral nor reasonable considering the campus’s function and all surrounding circumstances,” Schroeder added.
The plaintiffs also have “plausibly alleged” their retaliation claims under the First Amendment. “Moreover, Plaintiffs’ allegations of disparate treatment of past protesters plausibly indicates that Defendants have not enforced their policies as harshly in similar situations and that Defendants ‘singled out these Plaintiffs … because of the nature of their protest and advocacy.’”
Circumstances of the plaintiffs’ arrest also will allow them to move forward with excessive force and battery complaints against some campus police defendants. Rogers and Dames both claimed they were injured while being handcuffed.