ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAABACAD
1
Case RulingDate of RulingLink(s)CourtCategoryReject/
challenge
IHRA (Y/N)		ExcerptMedia
2
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS, et al.,
v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al -- Case No. 25-cv-07864		Order granting motion for preliminary injuction14 Nov 2025https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/PI-decision.pdfUS District Court, Northern District of California AcademiaNO"...The unrebutted record further reflects that Defendants’ actions have already resulted in significant chilling effect on freedom of speech...The UC has already begun withdrawing support for “risky” speech as a direct result of the Task Force Policy. In the wake of Defendants opening civil rights investigations into the UC, the UC Irvine administration instructed a faculty member not to teach a course on campus
politics because “it was risky and would make UCI a target.” (Dkt. No. 29-29 ¶ 54.) In another example, UCLA professor and UCLA-FA member Graemen Blair explains that he is part of a team that submitted a proposal in 2024 for a project concerning academic freedom in the context of pro-Palestinian speech. (Dkt. No. 29-4 ¶¶ 1, 5, 41.) UCLA committed $140,000 in matching funds to the project, with the rest to be covered by a private funder. (Id.) However, after receiving the August 8 Offer, UCLA informed Blair’s team on August 20, 2025, that they could no longer endorse the project. (Id. ¶¶ 41–43.) Without university funding, the project has been scrapped. (Id.)"

"...Moreover, Plaintiffs’ members describe how their teaching has been affected by the proposed settlement’s requirement to ban foreign students likely to engage in anti-Western or anti-American disruptions, and to socialize foreign students to certain norms. For example, UC Berkeley law school professor and BFA member Christopher Kutz stopped covering the Israel-Palestine conflict in his class, so that his international students would not be required to write or speak on that topic and thus face consequences if their speech was reported as anti-American. (Dkt. No. 29-25 ¶¶ 1, 7, 31–33.) UC Irvine professor and IFA and CUCFA member Sanghyuk Shin has censored his teaching on Palestine and structural racism, and has stopped promoting his students’ scholarship on Palestine to protect them from being targeted. (Dkt. No. 29-44 ¶¶ 1, 9, 16–17.) Finally, Plaintiffs’ members describe fear that they will be retaliated against for exercising their right to protest. One UPTE member at UCLA previously participated in several protests and demonstrations—wearing a mask for health and safety reasons—but fears that doing so in the future will draw retaliation by Defendants or by UCLA in its effort to comply with Defendants’ demands. (Dkt. No. 29-12 ¶¶ 8–9.) Shin, the UCLA professor, was asked by
another faculty member to stop protesting because his speech “might upset the Trump administration and result in funding cuts for UC.” (Dkt. No. 29-44 ¶ 18.) Another witness, who teaches at a UC school and is a CUCFA member, states that although she used to attend student-led protests and labor union rallies, she now is “hesitant to attend protests on campus or speak publicly about current events” for fear of triggering retaliation. (Dkt. No. 30-11 ¶ 1, 5, 20.)"

"...the record shows that Plaintiffs’ members are continuing to suffer further present injuries from the promise to cancel more funds without required safeguards under Task Force Policy. Defendant Terrell threatened to 'investigate the entire UC system in California' to 'take away every single federal dollar.' (Dkt. No. 27-36, at 3–4.) Plaintiffs’ members have thus stopped teaching about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ceased research related to those topics, and have stopped attending campus protests, all out of a fear that their conduct will draw more unfounded funding cancellations across the UC system and more demands for payments not authorized by statute. See supra Section V.A. There is a direct line between Defendants’ threat to act without regard to these safeguards and the resulting chilling effects. And these claims are ripe, for the reasons outlined above. The likely illegal suspensions have already happened, and Defendants have threatened that more are coming, pursuant to the Task Force Policy." & 		CBS 11/14/25: Judge bars Trump from immediately cutting funding to the University of California

AAUP 11/15/25: Win in AAUP v. Trump: Court Blocks Attacks on University of California System
3
MIZZOU STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE IN PALESTINE v. MUN Y. CHOI, President of the University of Missouri School System and Chancellor of the University of Missouri, in his individual and official capacity -- Case No. 25-cv-04184-SRBReject motion to dismiss5 Nov 2025https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/W.D.-Mo.-25-cv-04184-dckt-000039_000-filed-2025-11-05-1.pdfUS District Court for the Western Disrict of Missouri, Central DivisionAcademia, ProtestNO"...These allegations demonstrate that Dr. Choi subjected MSJP to a 'unique scrutiny' and are sufficient to show that the exclusion was motivated by MSJP’s viewpoint on Palestine and Israel. Gerlich v. Leath, 861 F.3d 697, 706 (8th Cir. 2017) (finding viewpoint discrimination where a student organization was subjected to “unique scrutiny” compared to other organizations). Accordingly, under either limited or unlimited designated public forum analysis, the Court finds that MSJP has plausibly alleged a First Amendment violation..." and "MSJP argues that 'right at issue here is neither abstract nor novel. It is a well-defined First Amendment rule that government officials, including those at public universities, may not discriminate against speech based on content or viewpoint when they have opened a forum for expression.' (Doc. #37, p. 12.) The Court agrees with MSJP. It is well established that '[t]he government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.' Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995). Regardless of whether the 2024 Homecoming Parade is a limited or unlimited designated public forum,7 the government cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination. See Gerlich v. Leath, 861 F.3d 697, 709 (8th Cir. 2017) ('It has long been recognized that if a university creates a limited public forum, it may not engage in viewpoint discrimination within that forum'); see Bowman, 444 F.3d at 976 (explaining that any restrictions in an unlimited designated public forum must be 'content-neutral' and 'necessary to serve a significant government interest.') Ultimately, the Court agrees with MSJP that 'the prohibition on viewpoint discrimination in university forums was clearly established long before Dr. Choi acted' and accepting MSJP’s allegations as true, Dr. Choi is not entitled to qualified immunity." CAIR press release 11/6/25: CAIR, Partners Obtain Federal Court Ruling Allowing Mizzou Students for Justice in Palestine Suit Against U. of Missouri to Move Forward
4
STAND WITH US CENTER FOR LEGAL JUSTICE; KATERINA BOUKIN; MARILYN MEYERS, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Defendant, Appellee -- No. 24-1800 [(1:24-cv-10577]
Affirm the district
court's order on all counts		21 Oct 2025https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1800P-01A.pdfUS Court of Appeals for the 1st CircuitAcademia, ProtestYESREAD THE WHOLE THING. One excerpt:
"Plaintiffs are entitled to their own interpretive lens equating anti-Zionism (as they define it) and antisemitism. But it is another matter altogether to insist that others must be bound by plaintiffs' view. Plaintiffs' equation finds no consensus support in dictionary definitions.13 Nor does a review of the academic literature point to any consensus that criticism of Zionism is antisemitic.14 And we do not find it dispositive that the United States Department of State has defined antisemitism as "[d]enying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”…This absence of consensus reflects ongoing debate as to the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism -- debate that our constitutional scheme resolves through discourse, not judicial fiat.”		Courthouse News Service 10/22/25: First Circuit ends Jewish students’ lawsuit over Gaza protests at MIT ["The appeals panel found that students’ accusations 'do not plausibly rise to the level of actionable harassment' required for the discrimination claim."]
5
AJP EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC. d/b/a AMERICAN MUSLIMS FOR PALESTINE v. JASON S. MIYARES, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia -- l:25-cv-161Grant emergency TRO & preliminary injunction17 Oct 2025https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1:2025cv01617/582164/25/US District Court for the Eastern District of Virgnia,
Alexandria Division		non-profit harassmentNO"For the reasons stated in open court and as further explained in this Memorandum Opinion, the Court has granted AMP’s Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Dkt.No. 9], staying execution of the Circuit Court’s September 29, 2025, order and enjoining the AG from further enforcing the CID 'to the extent that it would require the disclosure of information protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution until the dispute between the parties has been fully adjudicated through the Virginia state court system.”Virginia Mercury 10/21/25: Judge issues injunction against Miyares in probe of pro-Palestinian nonprofit ["Judge Leonie Brinkema said Miyares’ push to obtain donor lists from American Muslims for Palestine is overly broad and likely violates the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of association."]
6
IYAD MUHAMMAD ABUELHAWA, Petitioner, vs. KRISTI NOEM, et al, Respondents. -- CIVIL ACTION NO4:25-cv-04128Grant prelimary injunction16 Oct 2025https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txsdce/4:2025cv04128/2026851/27/US District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston DivisionImmigrationNO"The motion by Petitioner Iyad Muhammad Abuelhawa for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. Dkt 12. It is hereby ORDERED that (i) Respondents in this action are ENJOINED from further holding Petitioner in custody, and (ii) they are COMPELLED to return him immediately to the conditions of his preexisting order of supervision. For the avoidance of doubt, while Petitioner remains on supervised release, nothing prevents Respondents from re-detaining and removing himif proper travel documents are secured and there is a significant likelihood of his removal to Israel, Jordan, a Palestinian territory, or an alternative third country after the proper evaluation of any credible fear claim has been made per the applicable regulations..."
7
DEBRA GASSMAN, Plaintiff, v. COOK COUNTY; and SHARONE R. MITCHELL, JR., solely in his official capacity as PUBLIC DEFENDER OF COOK COUNTY, Defendants. -- Case: 1:24-cv-01279 Grants non-party movant Nabeela Ahmed’s Partial Motion to Quash Subpoena 8 Oct 2025https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2024cv01279/455326/64/US District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern DivisionOther harassmenNO"...As Plaintiff admits, 'the topic of Israeli-Palestinian relations' is a matter of public concern. [Dkt. 54 at p. 7]. The risk of retaliation and need for privacy are particularly acute here because the type of speech at issue is under nationwide assault at the present historical moment. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds the risk of harassment and retaliation in response to any of Ms. Ahmed’s non-public speech about Israel/Palestine in her private social media posts or emails or other communications outweighs Plaintiff’s alleged need..."
8
KAMAL KORAITEM, Plaintiff, v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant. -- 5:2024cv00462ORDER GRANTING IN PART & DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT8 Oct 2025https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2024cv00462/423910/108/US District Court Northern District of California San Jose DivisionemploymentNO"Plaintiff has presentedevidence that could show Defendant was politically motivated to terminate Plaintiff based on his viewpoint. Most notably, Defendant’s Human Resources Manager specifically communicated her issue with Plaintiff’s political identity and viewsin an email to Carr, stating: 'It’s clear in my opinion that he is Muslim, I searched also and he has many post[sic]supporting or transmitting he is with the Palestinian people.' The Human Resource Manager’s email went on to list Plaintiff’s posts, beginning with the post regarding three dead Palestinian children. The fact that Carr also testified that she supported Israel’s bombing of Palestine and specifically took issue with this same post mourning deceased Palestinian children, among others, could demonstrate that Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s posts extended to his broader political advocacy for Palestinianrights. Defendant’s executive leadership also promoted their own contrary political views on the Israel-Palestine conflict through company communications when Moorthy opined in a company email that 'Israel’s response. . . is justified and necessary' and that October 7 'must be responded to in whatever way Israel deems appropriate.'”
9

Estate of Tamar Kedem Simon Tov et al v. United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) et al, No. 1:2024cv04765		DISMISSED with prejudice30 Sept 2025https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2024cv04765/623682/69/0.pdfUS District Court, Southern District of New Yorkterror supportNO"Because UNRWA is a subsidiary organ of the United Nations and has not waived its
immunity, it is entitled to immunity under the CPIUN. The Individual Defendants, including
Defendants Lazzarini and Grandi, are likewise protected by diplomatic immunity for actions
taken in their official capacities under the CPIUN and VCDR. Accordingly, this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED,
and the complaint DISMISSED with prejudice."
10
American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (1:25-cv-10685) Find for the plaintiffs30 Sept 2025https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282460/gov.uscourts.mad.282460.261.0.pdfUS District Court, District of MassachussettsImmigration, ProtestYESREAD THE WHOLE THING!

"...this Court finds as fact and concludes as matter of law that Secretaries Noem and Rubio and their several agents and subordinates acted in concert to misuse the sweeping powers of their respective offices to target non-citizen pro-Palestinians for deportation primarily on account of their First Amendment protected political speech. They did so in order to strike fear into similarly situated non-citizen pro-Palestinian individuals, pro-actively (and effectively) curbing lawful pro-Palestinian speech and intentionally denying such individuals (including the plaintiffs here) the freedom of speech that is their right. Moreover, the effect of these targeted deportation proceedings continues unconstitutionally to chill freedom of speech to this day."		DAWN (ADC's Jenin Younes) 10/8/25: Why the U.S. Judiciary Just Ruled in Favor of Pro-Palestine Speech

Politico 9/30/25: Judge excoriates Trump in blistering decision calling efforts to deport pro-Palestinian academics illegal

CNN 9/30/25: ‘Full-throated assault on the First Amendment’: Judge rips into Trump over attempts to deport pro-Palestinian academics
11
MIZZOU STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE IN PALESTINE v. MUN Y. CHOI, President of the University of Missouri School System and Chancellor of the University of Missouri, in his individual and official capacity - Case No. 25-cv-04184-SRB Preliminary Injunction19 Sept 2025https://abc17news.b-cdn.net/abc17news.com/2025/09/MSJP-decision.pdfUS District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Central DivisionAcademia, ProtestNO“The Court finds MSJP has presented sufficient evidence to show a 'fair chance' that Dr. Choi excluded MSJP for its viewpoint on Palestine and Israel…”
12
In re: APPLICATION OF ISAAC LEVI PILANT, FOR AN ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782
TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY FOR USE IN A FOREIGN PROCEEDING		Court denies
Petitioner’s motion		18 Sept 2025https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.527837/gov.uscourts.nyed.527837.26.0.pdfUS District Court, Eastern District of New YorkOtherNO"the breadth of Petitioner’s discovery request suggests an attempt to obtain information that far exceeds the scope of the allegations in the anticipated foreign proceeding. The proposed subpoena duces tecum seeks all documents and communications mentioning, discussing, or concerning Petitioner, including those prepared by DAWN, in DAWN’s possession, reviewed by DAWN, exchanged between DAWN employees, exchanged 'between DAWN and any other third party,' and exchanged 'between DAWN and any U.S. government agency.' (Subpoena Duces Tecum, ECF No. 6-1, at 1.) These broad requests undoubtedly include documents that have no relevance to Yesh Din’s alleged defamation of Petitioner. Indeed, such sweeping and untailored discovery requests do not suggest targeted discovery relevant to the allegations in the draft complaint, but rather, an impermissible fishing expedition..." DAWN 9/19/25: Federal Court Dismisses Retaliatory Legal Attack Against DAWN, Protecting First Amendment Rights
13
MAYA PARIZER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AJP EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC. a/k/a AMERICAN MUSLIMS FOR PALESTINE, et al., Defendants. -- Case 1:24-cv-00724-RDA-IDD Dismissed without prejudice15 Aug 2025https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.553122/gov.uscourts.vaed.553122.161.0.pdfUS District Court for the Eastern District of Virgnia
Alexandria Division		terror supportNOREAD THE WHOLE THING. One excerpt:
"...Although Plaintiffs conclude that Defendants have aided and abetted Hamas by providing it with 'material support despite knowledge of Hamas’s terrorist activity both before, during, and after its October 7 terrorist attack,' Plaintiffs do not allege that any planning, preparation, funding, or execution of the October 7, 2023 attack or any violations of international law by Hamas occurred in the United States. None of the direct attackers are alleged to be citizens of the United States. The crux of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is that: Defendants fund and act as Hamas’s public relations division, recruiting domestic foot soldiers to disseminate Hamas’s propaganda and to incite and engage in violence directed at creating chaos and fear across the United States, intimidating American citizens and policymakers, and forcing American policy to shift in Hamas’s favor. Id. ¶ 93. These 'public relations'8 allegations are vague and conclusory and cannot satisfy Plaintiffs’ burden here. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not plead specific facts adequate to 'draw a sufficient connection between the cause of action [Plaintiffs] seek—aiding and abetting [Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack] overseas—and [Defendants’] domestic conduct.'”		Common Dreams 8/16/25: Trump-Appointed Judge Tosses Lawsuit Accusing Pro-Palestinian Groups of Being Fronts for Hamas
14

Lavi, et al. v. UNRWA USA National Committee, Inc.
-- Case 1:24-cv-00312-RGA		Dismissed without prejudice8 Aug 2025https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.85167/gov.uscourts.ded.85167.50.0.pdfUS District Court for the District of Delaware terror supportNO"...Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege that Defendant encouraged the October 7th attack, or that any of Defendant's aid to UNRWA made it to Hamas. They do not allege that Defendant was present during the attack...they do not plausibly allege that Defendant was related to Hamas. They do not plausibly allege that Defendeant knew the October 7th attack was about to occur or intended to support Hamas in carrying out the attack...:Center for Constitutional Rights 8/8/25: Victory for U.S. Charity that Aids Palestinian Refugees: Court Dismisses Lawsuit Aimed at Defunding UNRWA
15
STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE IN PALESTINE AT PITT v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGHPreliminary injuction8 Aug 2025https://www.aclupa.org/app/uploads/2025/04/80-Preliminary-Injunction-Order.pdfUS District Court for the Western District of PennsylvaniaAcademia, ProtestNO"This case turns on whether the speech at issue is protected or not, and if protected, whether strict scrutiny applies. The Court finds that this was protected speech...Pitt’s Code of Conduct Rules 42 and 43, as applied,3 are content-based thus triggering strict scrutiny; while Pitt has a compelling interest in ensuring the fair administration of justice in its conduct hearings, the rules sweep too broadly to further that interest and therefore are not narrowly tailored. So, the rules, as applied, do not pass strict scrutiny...There is irreparable harm. As reflected in Plaintiff’s Hearing Exhibit 1, 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..."
16
CHRISTOPHER MANHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. WESPAC FOUNDATION, INC., NATIONAL STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE IN PALESTINE, DISSENTERS, JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE, TIDES CENTER d/b/a COMMUNITY JUSTICE EXCHANGE, JINAN CHEHADE, SUPERIOR MURPHY, RIFQA FALANEH, SIMONE TUCKER -- No. 1:2024cv08209SAC dismissed with prejudice. Defendants’ motions to dismiss [73, 75, 78, 80, 82] are granted in part and denied in part. Civil case terminated. 7 Aug 2025https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2024cv08209/464113/109/US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern DivisionProtestNOExcerpt: "...the Court believes that Plaintiff’s filings were presented for the improper purpose of harassment and that Plaintiff made legal contentions that were neither supported by existing law nor nonfrivolous arguments in favor of the extension or modification of existing law. Accordingly, and for the reasons explained in further detail below, Defendants’ motions for sanctions [72]; [76] are granted. Plaintiff’s improper purpose is evident from the SAC. The SAC is rife with allegations that are irrelevant to Plaintiff’s stated causes of action and which are only a hair’s breadth away from calling Defendants terrorists and placing the loss of innocent lives at their feet. Among other things, the SAC alleges that Defendants engaged in a 'propaganda offensive' on behalf of Hamas, [69] ¶ 5, and that at least some Defendants acted 'as Hamas’s propaganda arm in the United States,' [69] ¶ 55. The SAC also alleges that Defendants are responsible for 'extend[ing] the war' in Gaza, 'resulting in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians and Israelis.' [69] ¶ 2. An earlier version of Plaintiff’s complaint alarmingly urged the Court to 'punish[] [Defendants] without remorse or hesitation.” [33] ¶ 8.'" JVP 8/14/25: VICTORY: Pro-Palestine Advocates Defeat Baseless Lawsuit Targeting Right to Protest in Chicago - JVP
17
THE STATE OF UTAH vs. ELIZABETH DEFRIEZ MARYON -- Case No. 251900693Dismissed with prejudice5 Aug 2025https://www.acluutah.org/app/uploads/2025/08/047-Order-on-Dismissal.pdf3rd District Court, Salt Lake Department in and for the County of Salt Lake, State of UtahProtestNO[could not find any written ruling]ACLU resource page on State of Utah v. Maryon
ACLU 8/7/25: ACLU of Utah Secures First Amendment Victory in Criminal Case
ABC4 8/7/25: Judge dismisses all charges against pro-Palestine protester
18
America First Legal Foundation v. Merrick Garland -- Civil Action No. 2024-3105 [demanding that Plaintiff believes that AJP Educational Foundation, Inc., National Students for Justice in Palestine, Osama Abuirshaid, Hatem Bazian, and WESPAC Foundation, Inc. are agents of "Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, the Palestine Liberation Organization, Islamic Jihad, and other similar 'Palestinian' organizations or persons" and must register under FARA as such]Dismissed with prejudice5 August 2925https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10648176/america-first-legal-foundation-v-merrick-garland/District Court, District of ColumbiaFARANO"In assessing standing, the Court assumes the merits of plaintiffs legal claim and accepts the factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See Tanner-Brown v. Haaland, 105 F.4th 437, 443, 445 (D.C. Cir. 2024). Still, plaintiff ultimately bears the burden of establishing standing. Friends ofAnimals, 828 F.3d at 992. Plaintiff here has failed to carry this burden, as its injury in fact and redressability arguments ignore the structure of FARA's registration and enforcement mechanisms."
19
Herzfeld v. Barmada, Civil Action No. 2024-1272Order granting motion to dismiss5 August 2025https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2024cv01272/267988/40/0.pdf?ts=1754474060District Court, District of ColumbiaProtest, Other harassmenNO"...try as he might, Rabbi Herzfeld has not alleged facts permitting recovery in tort or under the D.C. Code for voluntarily entering a group of protesters wielding sound-amplifying devices. His claims for assault and battery falter because, even if causing soundwaves to contact someone (or causing a person to fear such contact) can support assault or battery liability—a novel proposition—Rabbi Herzfeld manifested consent to the conduct that he says caused the soundwaves to strike him. Nor has he alleged the requisite outrageous conduct or emotional suffering for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The statutory claim, moreover, fails because Rabbi Herzfeld has not alleged that Barmada and Rokhvand committed a criminal act demonstrating their prejudice against him. And those defects are the end of the road for the civil-conspiracy claim, a theory of vicarious liability lacking an underlying source of liability. "
20
Stephanie Siegel v. Sahar Aziz -- Docket Number: A-1445-23Dismissal affirmed. ["This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3"]		7 July 2025https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10623629/stephanie-siegel-v-sahar-aziz/New Jersey Superior Court Appellate DivisionOther harassmenNO"The SEC reasoned, '[t]he statements at issue in Leonard are not factually similar to the alleged statements in the present matter. Political speech
criticizing Israel's policies and/or existence, while it may be offensive and distasteful, is not the same as a personal attack with calls for death." We agree
with the SEC's analysis and conclusion. Leonard is distinguishable from the present matter. Defendant's posts do not contain threats to the lives of individuals like the posts in Leonard. Relatedly, defendant's Letter called for pressuring academic institutions by calling for '[b]oycott, [d]ivestment and [s]anctions of Israel' as well as '[h]ighlighting Palestinian scholarship.' Nothing in the Letter contain threats to individuals. We see no basis to disturb
the SEC's determination."
21
 Helmann v. Codepink Women for Peace, Case 2:24-cv-05704-SVW-PVC ORDER GRANTING IN PART & DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS13 June 2025https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.932569/gov.uscourts.cacd.932569.105.0.pdfUS District Court, Central District of CaliforniaProtestNO"...Even if 'belly of the beast' refers to the Synagogue, these posts are not true threats. At most, they express a political message: if there is no justice for Palestinians, there will be no peace—even in religious spaces.That kind of message is too vague to qualify as a true threat. To be sure, the posts may invoke violent imagery—'no peace' inside of the Synagogue. But 'mere advocacy of the use of force or violence does not remove speech from the protection of the First Amendment.' NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982). For example, in Claiborne, even the statement, 'if we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we're gonna break your damn neck,' was protected speech. To lose this First Amendment protection, a statement must be 'a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals'—i.e., a 'true threat.' PYM's post does not meet that standard. It targets no individual. It makes no specific threat. The Supreme Court has upheld similar speech. In Watts v. United States (1969), a protester said: 'if they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.' The Court held that the statement was not a true threat. Rather, it was 'political hyperbole.' PYM's post follows the same structure: a conditional statement tied to a political grievance. To paraphrase PYM's posts, 'if there is no justice, then there will be no peace—even in a synagogue' mirrors the logic of the statement in Watts: if the speaker is drafted, he will target the President. Both are vague expressions of protest—not direct, credible threats. Like the language in Watts, PYM's statement is 'political hyperbole,' 'expressly conditional.' and too imprecise to strip it of First Amendment Protection."Reason Magazine/Volokh Conspiracy 10/31/25: Palestinian Youth Movement Social Media Posts with "No Justice, No Peace" Urging Protest Outside Synagogue Are Protected Speech
22
EYAL YAKOBY, JORDAN DAVIS, NOAH RUBIN and STUDENTS AGAINST CIVIL ACTION ANTISEMITISM, INC. v. THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA -- Case 2:23-cv-0478-Dismissed without prejudice2 June 2025https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.616442/gov.uscourts.paed.616442.72.0.pdfUS District Court for the Eastern District of PennsylvaniaAcademiaNOREAD WHOLE THING - 1 excerpt:
"For the reasons outlined, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is dismissed for failure to plead claims on which relief can be granted under Title VI, breach of contract, and the UTPCPL. However, a district court must provide a plaintiff with an opportunity to make a curative amendment even if the plaintiff does not seek leave to do so unless such amendment would be inequitable or futile. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 245 (3d Cir. 2008). I find that amendment of Count III would be futile as the facts which Plaintiffs have put forward simply cannot sustain a claim under the UTPCPL. I cannot, however, definitively make that determination with respect to Counts I and II. Because it appears that the deficiencies noted in those counts could potentially be resolved through the filing of a Second Amended Complaint, leave to amend the Title VI and breach of contract claims shall be granted. However, and as has been repeatedly observed throughout this Opinion, many of the more than 300 paragraphs in the Amended Complaint contain language which is unnecessarily inflammatory and 'impertinent,' and immaterial allegations that have virtually nothing to do with the claims which Plaintiffs are endeavoring to raise. Filing of yet another complaint would be Plaintiffs’ third bite at the apple. Plaintiffs are cautioned that if they choose to file a third complaint, the additional allegations must be alleged in good faith and in compliance with Rules 8(a) and 11."
23
REBECCA GARTENBERG, PERIE HOFFMAN, JACOB KHALILI, GABRIEL KRET, TAYLOR ROSLYN LENT, BENJAMIN MEINER, MICHELLE MEINER, MEGHAN NOTKIN, GILA ROSENZWEIG, and ANNA WEISMAN, -v- THE COOPER UNION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE AND ARTMotion for reconsideration of the Court’s Opinion and Order denied.25 Feb 2025https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2024cv02669/619155/44/0.pdf?ts=1740588542US District Court, Southern District of New York Academia, ProtestNO"...the Court, of course, ultimately concluded that Gartenberg’s Complaint states a plausible claim for a hostile educational environment based on physically threatening or humiliating harassment and repeated acts of antisemitic vandalism and graffiti. See id. at *20. But the Court’s Opinion and Order also meant what it said about the First Amendment. To construe Title VI’s prohibition on discriminatory harassment as sweeping in instances of pure speech that are reasonably designed or intended to contribute to the ongoing public debate concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would “risk[] the suppression of free speech and creative inquiry in one of the vital centers for the Nation’s intellectual life, its college and university campuses.” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 836 (1995). That is a result the Court must avoid. See Boos, 485 U.S. at 331. For these reasons, Gartenberg’s Motion is denied."
24

Canel v. Art Institute of Chicago et al, No. 1:2023cv17064 - Document 106 (N.D. Ill. 2025)		Plaintiff’s complaint [1] is dismissed without prejudice20 Feb 2025https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2023cv17064/449517/106/0.pdf?ts=1740135301US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division Academia, ProtestNO"...From these allegations, though, the Court cannot also conclude that the banners and flyers represent discriminatory harassment of plaintiff on the ground of her Jewish or Israeli identities. The Court is not alone in distinguishing between permissible political expression and unlawful discrimination in the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas terrorist attacks, the Israeli government’s response to the attacks, and protests that erupted on campuses nationwide as a result of these events. In Landau v. Corporation of Haverford College, a district court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether a complaint plausibly alleged a hostile environment violation under Title VI where, according to plaintiffs in that action, Haverford College failed to act, or at times chose not to act, 'in the face of widespread antisemitism on campus' following Hamas’ October 2023 attack. No. CV 24-2044, 2025 WL 35469, at *1–3 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2025). In granting the college’s motion to dismiss, the court in Landau explained that '[d]eciphering when criticism of Israel or promotion of the Palestinian cause veers into antisemitism is necessarily a fact specific endeavor.” Id. at *4. And it rebuffed plaintiffs’ efforts to 'implicitly sweep any and all criticism of Israel into the basket of antisemitism.' Id. at *2. It explained: 'I reject Plaintiffs’ embedded proposition that any anti-Israel speech is intrinsically antisemitic, because reasonable people acting in good faith can challenge decisions of the Israeli government without harboring antisemitic views.' Id. The Court reaches the same conclusion based on the allegations before it."
25
Jan v. People Media Project et al, No. 3:2024cv05553Dismissed without prejudice31 Jan 2025https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/3:2024cv05553/337008/40/0.pdf?ts=1738439408US District Court, Western District of Washington at Tacoma terror supportNO"Because Jan’s complaint does not allege actual knowledge, his claims based on compensating Aljamal as a journalist must be dismissed. Because Jan’s claims based on the contents of Defendants’ articles are shielded by the First Amendment’s protection of speech on matters of public concern, those claims must be dismissed as well."Times of Israel 2/3/25: US judge dismisses rescued hostage’s lawsuit against company that employed his captor
Dissenter 2/4/25: US Judge Upholds First Amendment, Dismisses Lawsuit Against Palestine Chronicle
26
ALLY LANDAU, HJSB, HJSC, and JEWS AT HAVERFORD
v. THE CORPORATION OF HAVERFORD COLLEGE -- Case 2:24-cv-02044		Dismissed without prejudice6 Jan 2025https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.622173/gov.uscourts.paed.622173.33.0.pdfUS District Court for the Eastern District of PennsylvaniaAcademiaImplicitlyExcerpt: "...Plaintiffs also dedicate a full eight pages of their Complaint to their effort to link Judaism
to Zionism, while simultaneously insisting that they are not asking the Court to resolve any
religious issues. Id. ¶¶ 56-103. Plaintiffs’ equivocation is disingenuous, but likely strategic,
seeking to blur the line between Zionism as a political philosophy and Zionism as a component of
Jewish identity, and in the process implicitly sweep any and all criticism of Israel into the basket
of antisemitism. 2 As a threshold matter, as I have done previously,3 I reject Plaintiffs’ embedded proposition that any anti-Israel speech is intrinsically antisemitic, because reasonable people acting
in good faith can challenge decisions of the Israeli government without harboring antisemitic
views..."

"...The Court does not doubt that reactions to events in Israel and Palestine have created many uncomfortable moments for Jewish students at Haverford, as on other campuses. But that does not by itself create a violation of federal law. Plaintiffs seek to advance a specific legal theory under Title VI, and that comes with the obligation to comply with federal pleading standards. Plaintiffs have already availed themselves of the opportunity to amend as of right in response to Haverford’s first motion to dismiss. This dismissal will be without prejudice, but if counsel chooses to file a second amended complaint, he would be well advised to file a tailored pleading that directly and specifically addresses the elements of the claims he advances, to the extent that he can do so in compliance with the obligations imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11."		Bi-College News 2/2/25: Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Accusing Haverford College of Antisemitism, Plaintiffs Plan to Amend Complaint a Second Time
27
STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE IN PALESTINE, AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GREG ABBOTT, in his official capacity only as the Governor of the State of Texas, et al., Defendants. -- Case 1:24-cv-00523 the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction28 Oct 2024https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172787806/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172787806.62.0.pdfUS District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin DivisionAcademia, ProtestYES"...as a threshold issue, the Court finds the incorporation of this specific definition of antisemitism is viewpoint discrimination. In general, including the word “antisemitism” in speech policies, perhaps in the context of protecting students from discrimination and harassment, is not inherently a First Amendment violation. The Defendants wish to view the speech policies in this vacuum, claiming the revised policies do not in fact prohibit any specific expression. (Dkt. 31, at 35-36). But here, the speech policies do not leave “antisemitism” open to constitutional definitions and interpretations, because GA-44 mandated a specific definition. (Dkt. 21-1). That definition, by incorporation of the IHRA’s examples, labels “calling the State of Israel a racist endeavor” and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” as antisemitic.13 And students can be punished for antisemitic speech under the revised speech policies. Supra, n.2-5. Plaintiffs follow this thread, reasonably understand that their intended speech is now punishable under the revised policies, and hesitate to engage in such expression. (Dkt. 21, at 5). Because of this, Court finds the revised policies are intertwined with GA-44 and the IHRA examples, which identify content-specific expression—like that the State of Israel is a racist endeavor or drawing comparisons between Israel and Nazis. Through the connection to these examples, the policies make that speech punishable, thereby chilling it."

"In conclusion, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim, even under Tinker, that the GA-44-compliant university policies impose impermissible viewpoint discrimination that chills speech in violation of the First Amendment"		Reason 10/29/25: Texas Public University Restrictions on Anti-Israel Speech Likely Violate First Amendment
28
University of Maryland Students for Justice in Palestine v. Board of Regents of the University System of Maryland et al, No. 8:2024cv02683 SJP’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction GRANTED; "For now, its request to remove the ban outside the College Park campus on this October 7 will be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE"1 Oct 2024https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/maryland/mddce/8:2024cv02683/567249/35/0.pdf?ts=1727863015US Distict Court for the District of MarylandAcademia, ProtestNO"this is a matter of law, not of wounded feelings. Free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment may be the most important law this country has. In many ways, all other basic freedoms—freedom of religion, of the press, of the right to assemble, and to petition the government—depend upon it. Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 327 (1937) (Cardozo, J.) (First Amendment is 'the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom'). Accordingly, subject to certain conditions that the Court will impose, the Court will order UMCP to permit the October 7 event to go forward. The law very much inclines in support of this decision."ACLU press release 10/1/24 - Federal Court Blocks University of Maryland’s Unconstitutional ‘Expressive Event’ Ban - ACLU, FIRE, and Knight Institute say decision is an important victory for students’ First Amendment rights

CNN 6/21/24 - Judge dismisses 30 cases of criminal trespass against pro-Palestinian protesters arrested inside Columbia University building
29
Goldstein v. Professional Staff Congress/CUNY, No. 23-384 (2d Cir. 2024)Dismissal affirmed.18 Mar 2024https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/23-384/23-384-2024-03-18.pdf?ts=1710774021US Court of Appeals For the Second CircuitAcademia, UnionsNO"The defendants filed motions to dismiss the claims, which were granted by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The professors appealed, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court agreed with the district court that the professors' claims were foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, and that the professors failed to allege that the contested section of the Taylor Law violates the First Amendment. Thus, the court concluded that the PSC's exclusive representation of the professors in collective bargaining did not violate the First Amendment, and that the limited fiduciary duty imposed by the contested section of the Taylor Law did not burden their First Amendment rights."Fairness Center 1/13/25: Supreme Court Denies Another Cert Petition Challenging Public Employee Collective Bargaining

The Fairness Center: Professors Seek Freedom from ‘Anti-Semitic’ Union’s Representation
30

STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE IN PALESTINE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA v. RODRIGUES et al, No. 1:2023cv00281 - Document 79 (N.D. Fla. 2024)		Order denying motion for preliminary injunction31 Jan 2024https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/florida/flndce/1:2023cv00281/522901/79/0.pdf?ts=1706806653US District Court, Northern District of Florida, Gainesville DivisionAcademia, ProtestNO"This Court does not fault Plaintiff’s members for feeling anxious about the fact that the Governor—arguably the most powerful man in Florida—has repeatedly disparaged Plaintiff’s members as 'terrorists' who support jihad' and repeated the falsehood that their organization has been 'deactivated.' But this Court rejects counsel’s suggestion that it should find, in the absence of other evidence, that Plaintiff has standing simply because someone cloaked with great power makes coercive statements that cause college students to fear some hypothetical future harm. Plaintiff’s argument stretches the injury-in-fact requirement beyond the boundaries that case law has established for standing in First Amendment pre-enforcement challenges. This Court is not free to exceed those boundaries...the record demonstrates that neither deactivation nor criminal investigation is imminent. Instead, this Court finds that no actions have been taken in pursuit of deactivation under the Chancellor’s memorandum. And, as this Court has already found, the Defendants with legal authority to directly regulate registered student organizations do not intend to deactivate Plaintiff. The Chancellor has switched tactics from deactivation to other actions the University might take in lieu of deactivation—but Plaintiff has proffered no record evidence demonstrating that the University of South Florida has taken any action based on the Chancellor’s statements on November 9th. The Chancellor has also acknowledged that the premise upon which his memorandum is based—that Plaintiff is under the 'headship” or control of the national SJP organization—is false, and thus, it is not clear whether the memorandum even continues to apply to Plaintiff.'"ACLU resource page on Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida v. Raymond Rodrigues
31
DEFENSE FOR CHILDREN INTERNATIONAL-PALESTINE, et al., v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, et al. -- Case 4:23-cv-05829-JSWDismissed & preliminary injunction denied.31 Jan 2024https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2024/01/91_1-31-24_Order-granting-MTD_w.pdfUS District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOtherNO"The undisputed evidence before this Court comports with the finding of the ICJ and indicates that the current treatment of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli military may plausibly constitute a genocide in violation of international law. Both the uncontroverted testimony of the Plaintiffs and the expert opinion proffered at the hearing on these motions as well as statements made by various officers of the Israeli government indicate that the ongoing military siege in Gaza is intended to eradicate a whole people and therefore plausibly falls within the international prohibition against genocide. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 19-6, Declaration of Drs. Cox, Sanford, and Trachtenberg, at ¶¶ 9-14.) It is every individual’s obligation to confront the current siege in Gaza, but it also this Court’s obligation to remain within the metes and bounds of its jurisdictional scope." AND

"There are rare cases in which the preferred outcome is inaccessible to the Court. This is one of those cases. The Court is bound by precedent and the division of our coordinate branches of government to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in this matter. Yet, as the ICJ has found, it is plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide. This Court implores Defendants to examine the results of their unflagging support of the military siege against the Palestinians in Gaza."		Courthouse News 1/31/24: Lawsuit to block US aid to Israel over campaign against Hamas dismissed ["The judge acknowledged that Israel's military campaign in Gaza may amount to genocide but said his hands were tied by the separation of powers."]

Center for Constitutional Rights - resource page on Defense for Children International - Palestine v. Biden

Charity & Security Network - resource page on Defense for Children International–Palestine, et al. v. Joseph Biden et al.
32
CONCERNED JEWISH PARENTS AND TEACHERS OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
v. LIBERATED ETHNIC STUDIES MODEL CURRICULUM CONSORTIUM		Dismissed with prejudice30 Nov 2024https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.852015/gov.uscourts.cacd.852015.145.0.pdfAcademiaImplicitly"The essence of plaintiffs’ alleged injuries appears to be that they are aware of the challenged curriculum, disagree with it, and fear it will be adopted or used in LAUSD classrooms. (See Dkt. 119, SAC at ¶¶ 26-30). But it is far from clear that learning about Israel and Palestine or encountering teaching materials with which one disagrees constitutes an injury. See Caldwell v. Caldwell, 545 F.3d 1126, 1133 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that a parent’s 'offense' to online instructional material was an 'abstract objection' insufficient to support standing). As the Supreme Court has noted, 'the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees . . . is not an injury sufficient to confer standing under Art. III, even though the disagreement is phrased in constitutional terms.' Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 485-86, 102 S.Ct. 752, 765 (1982). Neither the parent-plaintiffs nor the teacher-plaintiffs have identified 'any personal injury suffered by them as a consequence of the alleged constitutional error[.]' See Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 485, 102 S.Ct. at 765 (emphasis omitted); (see, generally, Dkt. 119, SAC at ¶¶ 64-221). Plaintiffs may not 'sue merely because their legal objection is accompanied by a strong moral, ideological, or policy objection to a [purported] government action.' 12 Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. at 381, 144 S.Ct. at 1556. In other words, the individual plaintiffs’ potential exposure to ideas with which they disagree is insufficient to support standing." EdSource 12/5/24: Judge rejects lawsuit over ‘liberated’ ethnic studies classes in LAUSD ["U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin’s scathing ruling on Nov. 30 criticized what he concluded was a lack of evidence and unpersuasive arguments made on behalf of the two Jewish teachers and parents in Concerned Jewish Parents and Teachers of Los Angeles, the group that brought the litigation."]
33
34
35
36
TO BE RESEARCHED:
37
38
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10581661/mahdawi-v-trump/
39
https://www.aclu.org/cases/khalil-v-trump
40
https://www.uscannenbergmedia.com/2025/03/24/case-alleging-that-usc-failed-to-protect-jewish-students-and-faculty-from-pro-palestinian-protests-is-dismissed/
41
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/2/26/alumni-antisemitism-lawsuit-dismissed/
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100