Anti-Zionist group’s suspension from Pitt lifted by federal judge

The University of Pittsburgh must immediately reinstate the local chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

The university suspended the group in March for six months, saying it had improperly attempted to influence a disciplinary committee while it was deliberating on whether an SJP-sponsored event at Hillman Library violated university policies.

U.S. District Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan granted SJP’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the university violated the anti-Zionist group’s free speech rights when it issued its suspension.

Get The Jewish Chronicle Weekly Edition by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

SJP has a long history of anti-Zionist and anti-Israel protests and rallies, including taking part in a 2024 encampment on university property. It has promoted boycott movements against Israel on social media, accused Israel of “genocide” and reposted several unsubstantiated and incendiary claims against the Jewish state.

The lawsuit centered on an open letter penned by SJP members in March in response to a Feb. 4 disciplinary hearing concerning a December “study-in” at Hillman Library. At the study-in, SJP members displayed pro-Palestinian messages, draped Palestinian flags over library tables and wore keffiyehs. Pitt police officers were called to break up SJP’s event, and disciplinary charges were filed.

The open letter, signed by various university and community groups, was sent to, among others, hearing officers deliberating on the disciplinary proceedings. In the letter, SJP said it was the “only Palestinian cultural and advocacy organization on campus—led by Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim students,” and alleged it was being “unfairly targeted with heightened scrutiny and politically driven disciplinary actions.”

The letter also alleged that the university’s actions “disproportionately penalize students of color for speaking out against apartheid and state violence but also set a dangerous precedent that will erode the free speech and organizational rights of all Pitt affiliates.”

The university said SJP violated two rules set forth in its Student Code of Conduct. Pitt suspended the organization until Sept. 18, alleging that the group was attempting to improperly influence the disciplinary procedure and intimidate the hearing officers.

SJP’s case was picked up by the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a lawsuit against the university alleging Pitt violated the group’s First Amendment rights.

In June the group filed a revised motion for preliminary injunctive relief, seeking an immediate termination of the suspension, arguing the club would be irreparably harmed if it was “precluded from recruiting new student members during Welcome Week, beginning August 18, when new students will have the opportunity to learn about the various registered student organization and how they can get involved.”

Despite the case not being heard until after the conclusion of Welcome Week, Ranjan agreed that the suspension caused SJP irreparable harm.

“Pitt has informed SJP that, during the suspension, it cannot gather as an organization or recruit other members. That seriously and presently infringes SJP’s rights of association and speech, particularly at this time of year, as the academic year begins,” Ranjan wrote in his three-page decision.

The university, however, would suffer no harm by lifting the suspension a few weeks earlier than planned, the judge ruled.

Ranjan, who was appointed to the federal bench in 2028 during the first Trump administration, wrote that public interest also would be served by “increasing the level of association and free speech on campus.”

The public, Ranjan wrote, is served through the integrity of conduct hearings at a public university. He indicated that Pitt should refine its code of conduct writing, “the integrity of the conduct hearing must be furthered by a more refined and tailored rule.”

During the hearing, university council Joshua W. B. Richards argued that SJP’s open letter was not protected speech, but rather was meant to intimidate the officers deciding the case. To illustrate his point, he cited an email written by one of the officers alleging that SJP was attempting to influence him and his decision.

The open letter, Richards argued, was akin to a defendant attempting to intimidate or influence a juror in a criminal case. He added that, like a criminal defendant, SJP was given due process.

SJP’s attorneys pushed back on Richard’s arguments, saying that unlike a civil or criminal case, the university ran the entire disciplinary process, including selection of the hearing officers — which included no students, essentially denying SJP a jury of its peers.

The judge ultimately agreed with attorney Witold Walczak, the ACLU’s Pennsylvania legal director, concluding that “the jury-tampering cases Pitt cites are legally inapposite to a quasi-administrative university conduct proceeding, and factually inapposite given the content and type of communication here.”

Ranjan also ruled against the university’s request for sanctions against SJP for what Pitt said was a “failure to preserve evidence.”

The request, Ranjan wrote was, “immaterial to the disposition of the preliminary-injunction motion.” While acknowledging the court had some concerns about SJP’s failure to preserve evidence, the alleged violations did not rise to a level “requiring an adverse inference or denial of the preliminary-injunction motion.”

Jared Stonesifer, Pitt’s senior director of external communications, said in a written statement to the Chronicle, that “Pitt is committed to maintaining a campus community where free speech is affirmed and free expression is assured. We will comply with the order issued on Thursday but cannot comment further as litigation is ongoing.”

The preliminary injunction is not the end of the dispute between SJP and the university, as there are still outstanding claims that have not been resolved. A trial date has not been set, but Ranjan urged the two parties to settle their differences.

“One last thing,” he wrote. “The Court encourages the parties to put their disputes, including what remains of this case, to rest. This entire dispute could have been handled differently … Hindsight’s 20/20. But it may be time to ratchet things down and get back to campus for a fresh start to the academic year.” PJC

David Rullo can be reached at drullo@pittsburghjewishchronicle.org.