Judge denies injunction request in lawsuit over banning Gaza protesters from UCSC campus

A Santa Cruz judge on Tuesday denied a request for a preliminary injunction that would have prevented UC Santa Cruz administrators from issuing blanket bans from campus without due process, even as the school says it has updated its policy to address concerns over such bans. 

The injunction was sought as part of a broader lawsuit filed in September by two students and one professor who were among more than 100 people, mostly students, banned from campus after taking part in a Gaza solidarity encampment protest in May. The lawsuit asks the court to prohibit the university from banning students from campus without taking additional steps to secure their rights –  such as providing conduct hearings prior to implementing a ban – and for a judgment finding that the university’s mass ban in May was “unlawful” and violated their rights. 

Between 75 and 100 UC Santa Cruz students and their supporters filed into a Santa Cruz County Superior Court to hear arguments for and against the injunction request. 

Thomas C. Seabaugh, an attorney for the protesters, said Judge Syda Cogliati didn’t say who was right or wrong on either side when she denied their injunction request: “She simply declined to issue an order now before a trial.” He said she decided not to issue an order as the facts presented by both sides in the case were too conflicting for her to make a determination about what happened. 

UCSC spokesperson Scott Hernandez-Jason said the university is committed to protecting free speech rights as well as maintaining campus safety. 

“The court’s denial of the proposed preliminary injunction recognizes its potential for harm to the UC Santa Cruz community,” he wrote. “UC Santa Cruz appreciates the court’s careful deliberation in this decision.”

Cogliati scheduled a hearing on Jan. 10 to discuss the next steps in the case, which could include a trial. 

Students Laaila Irshad, Hannah (Elio) Ellutzi and professor Christine Hong are being represented by Seabaugh, the ACLU Foundation of Northern California and the Center for Protest Law & Litigation. 

The students and Hong, like the more than 100 people arrested May 31, were cited by UCSC police with failure to disperse and resisting arrest. Officials said that everyone arrested was also banned from campus or issued notices under California Penal Code section 626.4. The section gives the chief administrative officer of a campus “the authority to exclude disruptive persons from campus temporarily for up to 14 days.” If someone banned from campus returns, the code says that individual is guilty of a misdemeanor. 

Under an emergency basis and as an exception to the code, if an individual poses a substantial and material threat of significant injury or property, Seabaugh said the code gives administrators the ability to ban someone without a hearing. 

Seabaugh said that UCSC’s use of the ban was “one of the most extreme” he had seen among the universities who used 626.4 bans this past spring because UCSC used that exception for all who were arrested. 

“They made a predetermined decision, which is admitted,” he said. “They decided that every person who was arrested for failure to disperse on May 31 would get the exact same cut-and-paste ban under the most extreme provision.” 

He said the provision is meant for emergencies – for example, if someone is an alleged domestic abuser or someone makes a bomb threat. 

“They took that emergency measure and just applied it to more than 100 students, and we’re talking 18-, 19-, 20-year-old kids,” he said. 

Seabaugh said that while the judge denied the request for a preliminary injunction, the university has made its own updates to how it implements its 626.4 bans since the lawsuit was filed.

In court documents dated Oct. 24, UCSC Police Chief Kevin Domby said that starting this academic year, the university would begin using new forms to help “the university’s compliance with the requirements of section 626.4” 

He wrote the university would start to include two forms: one that notifies the individual of the reason for the ban and a summary of the reason that “should ‘include the date, time, place and circumstances,’” as well as another with the facts of the individual’s case and a signature of the chief administrative officer who reviews it. 

Seabaugh said that “on its face,” the new policy does what protesters accused the university of not doing for the campus bans in the spring. 

“I think on everybody’s mind at the hearing today was that the university has already agreed, at least in practice, if not in words, that they have to change their practice,” he said. “The new policy includes a form that has to be filled out for each person subjected to the ban and there’s a portion of the form that has to be filled out that describes what this particular person is alleged to have done. So that is obviously better than no determinations that are individualized at all.” 

Seabaugh said he’s not sure how much, if at all, the new policy will change the lawsuit going forward. He also said it’s too soon in the case to know a timeline for when it will be resolved.

“It would be one thing if the university came into court, and said, ‘Your Honor, we’re sorry we messed up, but we fixed it. We have a new policy. We’re not going to do this again in the future,’” he said. “That’s not what happened. They came into court and insisted they’ve done nothing wrong. That is the university position.” 

Seabaugh said the students who were banned faced “extraordinarily harsh punishment” on top of the arrests. He added that so far, the district attorney’s office has not filed charges against any of the more than 100 people arrested on campus in May. UCSC police haven’t responded to requests from Lookout about whether they’ve sent their reports to the district attorney’s office for review in order to potentially bring charges. 

“The impact on these students was devastating,” Seabaugh said. “Students became homeless. Students had to scramble to feed themselves, lost access to their workplaces, missed medical appointments, weren’t able to get to the library to do their homework or study for exams.” 

He said he expected many of the more than 75 students who filed into the courtroom Tuesday morning were likely some of the students who faced the bans. 

“It was very moving,” he said. “I will remember this for the rest of my life as a civil rights attorney.”

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.