
Auraria Campus Police violated First Amendment rights during Denver protest arrest, claims new lawsuit
Eight Coloradans, including a college professor, are suing the Auraria Campus police chief and several officers almost a year after they were arrested during campus protests over the
war in Gaza
.
In the spring of 2024,
protestors descended upon campuses
across the country and the world, including the
Auraria Campus in Denver
, which houses campuses for the University of Colorado Denver, Community College of Denver, and Metropolitan State University of Denver.
They set up an encampment on the Tivoli quad, which violates campus policy. On April 26, Auraria Campus Police started arresting people for trespassing.
Alex Boodrookas is an assistant professor of history at MSU Denver. He says he was leaving a meeting when he saw the scene unfolding. He says he sat with the students to try to deescalate the situation but was arrested.
CU Boulder alumni Sarah Napier was also arrested. She says she was protesting but not camping. They're two of eight people now suing Auraria Police Chief Jason Mollendor and six other officers, with the help of lawyers from Rathod Mohamedbhai LLC, accusing the officers of violating their First Amendment rights.
"You should be able to peacefully protest," Napier told CBS News Colorado. You should be able to, you know, have your First Amendment rights."
They say that Auraria police didn't adequately warn protestors that they would be arresting anyone and, even if they did, their arrests were unjustified because they weren't camping. They allege the arrests were an attempt to silence voices campus officials didn't like.
"The mass arrests that we saw at the encampments last year, like they very much laid the groundwork for what we're seeing today," Boodrookas said.
Both Boodrookas and Napier ultimately had their charges dismissed and their records sealed, but they say the damage was done. They've both faced professional repercussions, but they say this lawsuit isn't about them; it's about making sure free speech is protected.
"I want to make sure that armed riot police don't arrest peaceful student demonstrators on my campus again," Boodrookas said.
On Wednesday, the Auraria Campus released the following statement:
"The Auraria campus has not been served with any civil rights lawsuit related to the events of April 26, 2024. Based on available media reports, it appears that the individuals involved chose to engage with the press prior to notifying either the Auraria Campus administration or the Auraria Campus Police Department.
We are also aware of several misrepresentations reported in today's media coverage. As with any legal matter, Auraria Campus remains committed to following the appropriate legal processes and protocols. We will be prepared to respond accordingly if and when we are served.
Our priority continues to be transparency, accountability, and the safety and well-being of the Auraria Campus community."
The lawsuit was filed at 9 a.m. on Wednesday in Denver District Court and asks for a jury trial, as well as punitive, compensatory, and economic damages.
"Rather than respecting the constitutional rights of those gathered, Auraria Campus Police Department officers abrogated well-established First Amendment rights through intimidation and mass arrests," it states, in part. "Protesters who peacefully linked arms in solidarity were trapped and encircled by riot police, physically prevented from leaving before officers began making arrests."
"If we fail to challenge this now, we risk normalizing the suppression of speech whenever it becomes inconvenient," Azra Taslimi, one of the attorneys representing the protesters, said at a news conference on Wednesday. "Student protest is not a disruption of education, it is a reflection of it. It is civic engagement, it is democracy in action, and it is why we must protect it."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Explainer-Does U.S. law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
By Dietrich Knauth President Donald Trump has deployed National Guard troops to California after two days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying that the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the U.S. government. California Governor Gavin Newsom on Sunday said he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind "its unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County" and return them to his command. WHAT LAWS DID TRUMP CITE TO JUSTIFY THE MOVE? Trump cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the U.S. Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 - Section 12406 - allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the U.S. is invaded, there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' WHAT ARE NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS ALLOWED TO DO UNDER THE LAW CITED IN TRUMP'S ORDER? An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the U.S. military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows the troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH? The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to assembly, freedom of speech and the press. Experts have said that Trump's decision to have U.S. troops respond to protests is an ominous sign for how far the president is willing to go to repress political speech and activity that he disagrees with or that criticizes his administration's policies. IS TRUMP'S MOVE SUSCEPTIBLE TO LEGAL CHALLENGES? Four legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organizations have cast doubt on Trump's use of Title 10 in response to immigration protests calling it inflammatory and reckless, especially without the support of California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, who has said Trump's actions would only escalate tensions. The protests in California do not rise to the level of 'rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Title 10 also says "orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States," but legal experts said that language might not be an obstacle. Legislative history suggests that those words were likely meant to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops. COULD CALIFORNIA SUE TO CHALLENGE TRUMP'S MOVE? California could file a lawsuit, arguing that deployment of National Guard troops was not justified by Title 10 because there was no 'rebellion' or threat to law enforcement. A lawsuit might take months to resolve, and the outcome would be uncertain. Because the protests may be over before a lawsuit is resolved, the decision to sue might be more of a political question than a legal one, experts said. WHAT OTHER LAWS COULD TRUMP INVOKE TO DIRECT THE NATIONAL GUARD OR OTHER U.S MILITARY TROOPS? Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. Casting protests as an 'insurrection' that requires the deployment of troops against U.S. citizens would be riskier legal territory, one legal expert said, in part because mostly peaceful protests and minor incidents aren't the sort of thing that the Insurrection Act were designed to address. The Insurrection Act has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the U.S. in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the Rodney King trial. But, the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
On the Record: Federal funding cuts threaten 1/3 of WTVP budget
PEORIA, Ill. (WMBD) — Local PBS affiliate stations like WTVP are sounding the alarm for their future after the Trump administration formally requested Congress to claw back funding for the next two years. WTVP President and CEO Jenn Gordon joined 'On the Record' and said the cuts will have a devastating impact on her station, which has just recovered from a financial situation of its own. 'So we're looking at an impact of about a third of our annual funding being immediately cut, if this rescission package goes through. So a lot is at stake here. More than 1.3 million people have already contacted Congress to voice their support [for public media],' she said. Gordon emphasized that public media differs from commercial media in that it's a private-public partnership. 'We're nonprofit organizations that rely in part on federal support to offer commercial-free programming to everyone. It was set up originally to receive some taxpayer dollars to get the ball rolling, but then also all of our local stations, we do quite a bit of fundraising to supplement that,' said Gordon. That federal funding could disappear in less than two months. The Trump administration, on Tuesday, sent Congress a rescission package, formally requesting the return of $1.1 billion already allocated for fiscal years 2026 and 2027 to fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That starts a countdown of 45 days for Congress to respond. If passed, Gordon said local stations like WTVP stand to lose nearly a third of their annual funding. 'This isn't just about national programming,' Gordon warned. 'Smaller stations will feel the cut even more sharply. At WTVP, we'd have to immediately shift into emergency fundraising mode to try to close the gap. It could slow or stop local and educational programming, and delay production for new shows.' The rescission package comes on the heels of another blow to public media. President Trump issued an executive order on May 1 to shut down PBS and NPR, citing bias and irrelevance. Both organizations have filed lawsuits in response, arguing the order is a violation of the First Amendment. Gordon said the ripple effects from the loss of funding will be felt everywhere, from fewer children's programs to potential job impacts at the local level. 'Some of that federal funding goes to actually producing programs. So you're going to see a shortening of production timelines. And then additionally, at the local level, it's going to immediately need us to move into a grassroots fundraising mode to try and make up for that difference,' she said. So, how can you help? Gordon said to call or send a message to your lawmakers voicing your support for public media. You can also visit 'It takes five minutes and could make a real difference,' she said. On June 3, PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger echoed Gordon's sentiments in a statement. 'The proposed rescissions would have a devastating impact on PBS member stations and the essential role they play in communities, particularly smaller and rural stations that rely on federal funding for a larger portion of their budgets,' she said. 'Without PBS member stations, Americans will lose unique local programming and emergency services in times of crisis. There's nothing more American than PBS, and we are proud to highlight real issues, individuals, and places that would otherwise be overlooked by commercial media.' PBS was created in by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 1969 to provide Americans with a non-commercial space for news, educational programming, and inspirational content. There are approximately 350 stations across the country. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
LA police chief: ‘Ready to meet whatever challenges we may face'
LA police chief: 'Ready to meet whatever challenges we may face' LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell says department is 'well prepared' to handle ICE protests; has a 'great working relationship' with the National Guard. Show Caption Hide Caption Trump orders troops to LA as agents, protesters clash over immigration President Trump ordered 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles to combat violent protesters opposed to immigration enforcement. Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell told USA TODAY his department will be 'well prepared' should any civil unrest occur during the third day of protests across the city. 'We certainly have a heavier deployment than usual,' McDonnell said June 8, declining to give a specific number. The chief said officers will be deployed outside a federal court building, the Metropolitan Detention Center, City Hall, and some parks where protests and demonstrations against deportation raids are scheduled to take place. 'You never know what's going to happen,' McDonnell said. 'We're more heavily deployed to meet whatever challenges we may face.' The chief's comments come as approximately 300 National Guard members arrived in Los Angeles after President Trump ordered the deployment of 2,000 officers, a move that California Gov. Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass have sharply criticized as inflammatory and unnecessary. Bass added that the presence of the National Guard could cause a 'chaotic escalation.' McDonnell said the LAPD is still figuring out what role the National Guard will play during any protests. 'It's still to be determined,' McDonnell said. 'Some of them just got on the ground, and we're trying to figure out how we can make this all work for everybody. For the city, the county and beyond. Our whole focus is on public safety.' McDonnell said the LAPD has worked very closely with the National Guard for months due to the deadly Palisades fires, adding, 'We have a great working relationship' with them. 'We're both here for the same reason, and that's ultimately to keep everybody safe,' McDonnell said. The determination of which agency will take the lead in handling any unruliness at protests and demonstrations, depends on when and where the unrest occurs, McDonnell said. The chief said there are 44 other law enforcement agencies in L.A. County that assist each other under a mutual aid agreement. 'It depends on where they are and what the circumstances are,' McDonnell said. 'We're responsible for the city of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is responsible for the county. We work together all the time.' McDonnell said the LAPD will not take part in any immigration enforcement action as prohibited by law under the California Values Act, often referred to as a 'sanctuary law.' But the department will have a presence to quell any civil unrest as protesters exercise their First Amendment rights, the chief said. 'We adapt to the circumstances as they are presented to us,' McDonnell said. 'We're putting ourselves out there on the line every day, and I'm proud of our people and the job that they do on behalf of the community.'