Seven pro-Palestinian Illinois State University students arrested for occupying Hovey Hall–collectively known as the ISU7–are suing the university. They claim ISU violated their 1st Amendment rights.
As previously reported, on May 3rd, 2024, Pro-Palestinian peace activists were protesting outside Illinois State University President Andover Tarhule’s office on the fourth floor of Hovey Hall. Activists have been calling for the University to divulge & divest in all companies that profit off of apartheid Israel.
Students had been occupying the building the entire day. Students were told two times by ISU’s Safety Demonstration Team (SDT) that failure to leave the building by 6PM would result in arrest & suspension. The Safety Demonstration Team warned students again after 6PM. Students were warned a fourth time by Dean of Students Andy Morgan and a fifth time by ISU Chief of Police Aaron Woodruff.
Students chose to stay in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza. All universities in Gaza have been destroyed by Israeli forces.
After their final refusal to leave, Chief Woodruff called in Normal Police Department officers and Bloomington Police Department officers to arrest the seven peace activists. They were taken into custody and suspended.
The lawsuit alleges their arrest was a violation of their first amendment rights. The lawsuit states Hovey Hall is considered a “public forum,” and, in the past, has been available for protest after hours.
The lawsuit lists a number of protests which have occurred at Hovey Hall, including:
- A protest against homophobia entitled “March for Queer Rights” in October of 2022;
- A protest for workers’ rights held AFSCME Local 1110 in April 2022;
- A protest for workers’ rights held by the ISU Graduate Workers Union in 2021;
- A protest against anti-black racism in 2019;
- Protests regarding racial integration, including the infamous “flagpole standoff,” in 1970.
However, it’s not clear if any of the above mentioned protests involved occupying Hovey Hall after hours.
The lawsuit accuses ISU Dean of Students Andy Morgan of being an “avowed and proud Zionist,”1 of encouraging students to protest in favor of Israel, of posing in pictures with the Israeli flag, and of posting pictures on social media of himself with the Israeli flag. The lawsuit alleges the primary reason the ISU7 were arrested and punished was specifically because of their pro-Palestinian views; and, it hypothesizes, if the protesters were protesting for Israel or literally any other issue, they would not have been arrested or suspended.
The lawsuit also states “On or about May 5th, 2024, without prior notice or warning, [Dean] Morgan issued interim suspensions and no-trespass orders to all Plaintiffs” (emphasis added). This is a patently false claim. As can be seen in this video recorded by Agitation Rising News, students were informed by the Safety Demonstration Team that refusal to leave could result in suspension. The SDT went into detail about what a suspension entailed including: no access to University facilities, inability to take finals or participate in graduation, eviction from dorms, etc.
One of the ISU7, Daniel Kimball, lived in the dorm and was rendered homeless by the suspension.
The lawsuit requests $50,000 per plaintiff, court costs, attorneys fees, and whatever additional relief the court deems appropriate should the plaintiffs succeed at trial. The first case management conference is scheduled for November 6th, 2024 at 9 AM. The ISU7 are being represented pro bono by attorney Sheryl Weikal. She is also representing them in their criminal case and their student disciplinary hearings.
Criminal Case
Meanwhile, the ISU7 still face criminal charges. They are each charged with one count of Criminal Trespass to State Land (a Class A Misdemeanor) and Criminal Trespass to Building (a Class B Misdemeanor). Criminal Trespass to State Land carries a maximum penalty of one year of incarceration and/or a $2,500 fine. Criminal Trespass to Building carries a maximum penalty of six months of incarceration and/or a $1,500 fine. All seven defendants have plead not guilty to the charges and are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
A pre-trial conference was held on July 31st, 2024. The ISU7 have filed a subpoena against the University requesting “all documents, records, photographs, video recordings, correspondence, communications, permits, licenses, or other information fixed in a tangible medium concerning or relating to protests, marches, directactons [sic], speeches, or arrets [sic] for trespass at Hovey Hall. All rules and regulations concerning Hovey Hall or protests in and around same time. Time frame is January 1st, 1970 to present.”
ISU assistant general counsel Emily J. Galligan filed a motion to quash the subpoena. Judge Scott Kording heard arguments for and against the motion to quash.
Galligan began her argument by blatantly lying to the court. She stated the ISU7 were accusing Dean Morgan of having a pro-Jewish bias. Yet, no where in the lawsuit filed are the words “Jew,” “Jewish,” or “Jewish person” ever written. Substituting the word “Zionist” for “Jewish” is a deeply anti-semitic statement. Not all Jews are Zionists, and the overwhelming majority of Zionists are not Jewish. It’s as bigoted a statement as declaring any black person who didn’t vote for President Joe Biden in 2020 “ain’t black.” The ISU7’s attorney is herself Jewish.
Galligan went on to argue the subpoena is overly broad, requesting information over a fifty year time period. She argued the subpoena is nothing more than a fishing expedition related to the civil trial, and it has no bearing on the criminal case.
Weikal argued the University’s counsel made no attempt to reach out to her office to narrow the request, something she says she’d be willing to do.
She furthered argued the evidence requested from the University, i.e., the complaining witness in the criminal case, is essential to her clients’ defenses. Such information could provide evidence of bias by the complaining witnesses against the defendants, specifically an anti-Palestinian bias. Weikal stated the core of the ISU7’s defense is one cannot trespass in a public forum for pure political speech. If the University has provided exceptions to other groups (i.e., allowing them to remain in a building after closing it to the public), Weikal argues this shows the rules do not apply equally to all forms of political speech. This would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
Judge Kording expressed skepticism at Weikal’s legal reasoning. He stated the triable claim is the protesters were present in Hovey Hall after they were told not to be. He asked whether a University could even have closing times for buildings where protests frequently occurred?
Judge Kording declined to issue a ruling on the motion to quash. He said he’d make a decision at the next court date on Wednesday, September 4th, 2024 at 3:30 PM.
The ISU7 got arrested in an act of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience means you are engaging in an act that very likely violates the rules or the law. By engaging is such an act, you recognize you are violating the rule/law purposefully, and there will very likely be some type of punishment for the action. The goal is specifically to cause a disruption and bring to light whatever issue you are protesting for. The point was to force the University and local municipality to expend resources to address the situation.
In this case, it forced the University and the Town of Normal to spend money & time on over a dozen police to arrest and remove the students from the building.
