Lawsuit filed against University of Tennessee over pro-Palestinian protest arrests
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WATE) — A new lawsuit filed in federal court claims the University of Tennessee violated students' constitutional rights after nine people were arrested followinga pro-Palestinian protest on the campus.
The lawsuit was filed Hasan Husain and Layla Sloiz and names UT System President Randy Boyd and the university's trustees. According to the suit, Husain and Sloiz attended the University of Tennessee and were identified as siblings of Palestinian descent who were born in Knoxville.
Ribbon cut on new 264-home neighborhood in North Knoxville
In May 2024, nine protesters, including seven students, were detained on the University of Tennessee campus. At the time, UT told 6 News those arrested were in a crowd gathered on the law school lawn in violation of the university's events policy and were trespassing. UT added that the crowd was told to leave before 9 p.m. or be subject to suspension from the university or arrest.
The lawsuit claims the university's decision to arrest and suspend protesters was unlawful and censored their protected speech. The suit added that the First Amendment does not allow officials to 'establish free-expression-black-out hours of the day, even on occasions that may be emotional or politically polarizing.'
The plaintiffs are asking for the court to stop UT from prohibiting pro-Palestinian demonstrations from gathering on campus, declare the arrests and student disciplinary actions unconstitutional, and award the plaintiffs damages and the costs of the suit.
Where is the line between free speech and riots? Lawyer explains laws around protests
When asked about the lawsuit, UT told 6 News that they do not comment on matters of pending or active litigation.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
36 minutes ago
- Axios
ABC suspends correspondent for calling Stephen Miller a "world-class hater"
ABC News Senior National Correspondent Terry Moran was suspended after he characterized top Trump aide Stephen Miller as "richly endowed with the capacity for hatred" in a since-deleted post, the network confirmed to Axios Sunday. The big picture: The incident is ammunition for the administration's attacks on and distrust of traditional media. The Trump administration has squeezed legacy media from several angles in its first few months, prompting legal battles over funding and First Amendment rights. Driving the news: An ABC News spokesperson confirmed in a statement to Axios that Moran " has been suspended pending further evaluation." "ABC News stands for objectivity and impartiality in its news coverage and does not condone subjective personal attacks on others. The post does not reflect the views of ABC News and violated our standards," the statement read. Catch up quick: Moran, who in April conducted an at-times testy interview with President Trump marking his first 100 days in office, shared a post to X shortly overnight Saturday calling both Miller, Trump's deputy chief of staff, and the president "world-class" haters. "The thing about Stephen Miller is not that he is the brains behind Trumpism," Moran's post started, according to a screenshot. He continued, saying that Miller's ability to translate Trump-world impulses into policy is not "what's interesting." "It's not brains. It's bile," he said. "Miller is a man who is richly endowed with the capacity for hatred. He's a world-class hater." Moran contended Miller's "hatreds are his spiritual nourishment." What he's saying: Miller, responding to Moran's post, argued that "[f]or decades, the privileged anchors and reporters narrating and gatekeeping our society have been radicals adopting a journalist's pose." Miller has been a driving force behind the president's controversial immigration crackdown and is one of his most-trusted aides. Zoom out: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described Moran's rhetoric as "unacceptable and unhinged" on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures," saying ABC confirmed it would be taking action.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Israel issues fresh warning to ‘antisemitic' Greta Thunberg and activists headed to Gaza on aid boat
Israel's government on Sunday vowed to prevent an aid boat carrying Greta Thunberg and other activists from reaching the Gaza Strip. Defense Minister Israel Katz said that Israel wouldn't allow anyone to break its naval blockade of the Palestinian territory, which he said was aimed at preventing Hamas from importing arms. 'To the antisemitic Greta and her fellow Hamas propagandists — I will say this clearly: You should turn back, because you will not make it to Gaza,' he said in a statement. Advertisement 3 Climate activist Greta Thunberg with other activists from a human rights organization in Catania, Italy, ahead of their departure for the Middle East. AP Thunberg, a climate campaigner, is among 12 activists aboard the Madleen, which is operated by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition. The vessel departed Sicily last Sunday on a mission that aims to break the sea blockade of Gaza and deliver humanitarian aid, while raising awareness over the growing humanitarian crisis 20 months into the Israel-Hamas war. The activists had said they planned to reach Gaza's territorial waters as early as Sunday. Thiago Ávila, a Brazilian activist on board the boat, posted a video on social media Sunday afternoon saying someone appeared to be jamming their tracking and communication devices about 160 nautical miles from Gaza. Advertisement Rima Hassan, a French member of the European Parliament who is of Palestinian descent, is among the others onboard. She has been barred from entering Israel because of her opposition to Israeli policies toward the Palestinians. After a 2½-month total blockade aimed at pressuring Hamas, Israel started allowing some basic aid into Gaza last month, but humanitarian workers have warned of famine unless the blockade is lifted and Israel ends its military offensive. An attempt last month by Freedom Flotilla to reach Gaza by sea failed after another of the group's vessels was attacked by two drones while sailing in international waters off Malta. The group blamed Israel for the attack, which damaged the front section of the ship. Advertisement 3 Thunberg and 12 activists are aboard the Madleen, operated by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, aiming to break the sea blockade and deliver humanitarian aid, while raising awareness over the humanitarian crisis stemming from the war. AP Israel and Egypt have imposed varying degrees of blockade on Gaza since Hamas seized power from rival Palestinian forces in 2007. Critics of the blockade say it amounts to collective punishment of Gaza's roughly 2 million Palestinians. Israel sealed Gaza off from all aid in the early days of the war ignited by the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, but later relented under U.S. pressure. In early March, shortly before Israel ended a ceasefire with Hamas, the country again blocked all imports, including food, fuel and medicine. Hamas-led militants killed around 1,200 people, mostly civilians, in the Oct. 7 attack and abducted 251 hostages, more than half of whom have since been released in ceasefire agreements or other deals. Hamas is still holding 55 hostages, more than half of them believed to be dead. Advertisement 3 Greta Thunberg stands aboard the aid ship Madleen. via REUTERS Israel's military campaign has killed more than 54,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which has said women and children make up most of the dead. It doesn't say whether those killed are civilians or combatants. The war has destroyed vast areas of Gaza and displaced around 90% of the territory's population, leaving people there almost completely dependent on international aid.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Harvard can't truly win its fight against Trump
Imagine a boxing match in which one fighter can block the blows of his opponent but isn't permitted to hit back. When struck by a low blow, the injured fighter may appeal, but the referee can only admonish the unscrupulous fighter to abide by the rules. He is not allowed to end the match by throwing in the towel — and his opponent is free to keep punching. This is the situation in which Harvard now finds itself. The Trump administration has accused Harvard University of tolerating antisemitism and implementing diversity, equity and inclusion policies that violate civil rights laws. On those tenuous grounds, the federal government has frozen or terminated billions in research funding, launched at least eight highly intrusive investigations, threatened to revoke the university's tax-exempt status and tried to end its ability to enroll international students. If a private actor illegally crippled Harvard's ability to operate, the university could ask a court to order the defendant to desist, award the institution attorneys' fees and costs and mandate monetary compensation for the harms it suffered. But the federal government has sovereign immunity, largely protecting it from suits and monetary damages. Harvard has already sued the government twice. The first lawsuit, filed in April, accuses the Trump administration of withholding billions in federal funding 'as leverage to gain control of academic decision making' in flagrant violation of the First Amendment and the procedural safeguards of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The second lawsuit, filed in May, challenges the government's revocation of Harvard's right to enroll international students 'without process or cause, to immediate and devastating effect for Harvard and more than 7,000 visa holders,' as another 'blatant violation of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act.' In both suits, Harvard seeks injunctions vacating the government's orders and reimbursement of its legal fees and costs. Just hours after Harvard filed its second lawsuit, the judge issued a temporary restraining order barring implementation of the edict prohibiting Harvard from enrolling international students. But neither lawsuit seeks — or can request — monetary compensation for the extraordinary harm Harvard is suffering at the government's hands. Harvard's research programs have been thrown into disarray, its reputation tarnished and, it argues, 'its ability to recruit and retain talent, secure future funding, and maintain its relationships with other institutions' significantly diminished. Harvard has been forced to allocate at least $250 million to salvage some of the research jeopardized by the government's funding freeze. The school has already spent huge amounts of time, energy and money responding to the government's many investigations and sweeping demands for information. And the fight is only in its early rounds. Although the Constitution does not explicitly address sovereign immunity, courts have held from the earliest days of the republic that the government cannot be sued without its consent. This principle is drawn from English common law, which assumed that 'the King can do no wrong.' As legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky has observed, the effect of sovereign immunity is 'to ensure that some individuals who have suffered egregious harms will be unable to receive redress for their injuries.' Congress can waive the government's immunity from suit through laws such as the Administrative Procedure Act, which underpins most of Harvard's claims against the government. But while that law allows courts to declare certain government actions illegal and issue injunctive relief, it does not permit the award of monetary damages. The Federal Tort Claims Act allows plaintiffs to seek damages for certain negligent or wrongful acts by government officials, such as a car crash or sexual assault. But its waiver doesn't extend to acts involving the performance of 'a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.' The law is thus rendered useless to parties injured by government edicts or policies, however damaging or illegal. As the Supreme Court has noted, protecting the government from monetary damages for policy judgments 'prevents judicial 'second-guessing' of legislative and administrative decisions.' Sovereign immunity also reduces the risk that liability concerns will prevent government officials from taking sound but potentially costly actions. But monetary damages serve two important legal functions: they help compensate victims for their injuries, and, by leveling the playing field, they deter government officials from committing wrongful acts. Without the ability to obtain monetary compensation, Harvard can deflect some of the government's attacks through court orders, but it cannot be made whole for the harm done to its finances, its reputation and members of the campus community. Worse still, there is nothing to deter the government from continuing its assault. And some actions will be difficult to challenge in court, such as the government's threat to exclude Harvard from future research grants, and its recent decision to pause all international student visa interviews, an action that will harm hundreds of colleges and universities, including Harvard. And under legislation working its way through Congress, the school may end up paying roughly $850 million annually in endowment excise taxes. As much as some critics of Harvard may revel in watching America's oldest, richest and most influential university humbled, the country benefits enormously from an institution that has trained eight American presidents, produced 161 Nobel laureates and made countless life-changing discoveries in medicine, science and technology, earning 155 patents last year alone. Harvard's experience demonstrates how much the rule of law depends on those in power exercising that power with restraint and in the public interest. Harvard cannot win this fight. It is rigged. But that doesn't mean the university should not stay in the ring, litigate, mobilize its alumni, donors and friends, and enlist the support of other colleges and universities, hoping to remain standing long enough for a new Congress and administration to stop the carnage. And, to that end, to make sure voters understand that when government officials are hell bent on punishing their political enemies (real and imagined) regardless of how large the collateral damage, just about every American loses. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. David Wippman is emeritus president of Hamilton College. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
