Federal Court Allows First Amendment Claims to Proceed in Lawsuit Challenging University of Michigan Firings and Blacklisting of Pro-Palestine Protesters

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 1, 2026
[email protected]

ANN ARBOR, MI | The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), serving as co-counsel alongside the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice, secured a significant ruling in a federal lawsuit challenging the University of Michigan’s termination and blacklisting of employees who participated in pro-Palestine protests.

The case, Hakim et al. v. Regents et al., was filed on behalf of one full-time employee and multiple student workers who were terminated and permanently barred from future employment after engaging in peaceful, off-duty protests advocating for Palestinian human rights and the University’s divestment from Israel.

In a decision issued on March 31, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied significant portions of the University’s motion to dismiss, allowing all of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment retaliation theories to proceed.  

The court found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged they were terminated and subjected to rehire bans because of protected speech on matters of public concern through their participation in campus protests. The ruling also allows claims to proceed based on alleged retaliation tied to the filing of the lawsuit itself.

“This court’s decision is a critical step forward,” said Malak Afaneh, staff attorney with ADC and co-counsel in the case. “Our clients engaged in protected speech on one of the most important human rights issues of our time. The Constitution does not allow a public university to retaliate against workers for that speech.”

While the court dismissed certain claims at this stage, including due-process and conspiracy claims, the decision allows the central constitutional question of unlawful retaliation for protected speech to move forward to the next phase of litigation.

“The core of this case remains intact,” Afaneh added. “This is about whether a public institution can punish individuals for expressing pro-Palestine views and strip them of their livelihood in doing so. The court made clear those claims deserve to be heard, and we look forward to holding the University accountable.”