By: Gabriel Roberts, Vol. 24 Staff Writer

Overview

Campus bans from the 2024 pro-Palestine protests have been lifted across the United States, and this time, it’s at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In Dames v. Roberts, the Middle District of North Carolina issued an injunction that removed campus bans for three protestors. In this case, the Plaintiffs were four individuals: students at UNC-CH, Duke University, Meredith University, and a professor at Duke University. The Plaintiffs are represented by ACLU of North Carolina, Emancipate NC, and Muslim Advocates.

Facts

Prompted by the Israel-Gaza Conflict, Students for Justice in Palestine held “sporadic protests” at the University. On April 26th, 2024, the protestors started an encampment at Polk’s Place, a grassy quad on campus surrounded by other academic and administrative facilities. The camp, akin to those at Columbia University, was meant to “express solidarity” with Palestine.
The University wanted to accommodate the protestors; they listened to their concerns. However, the camp was deemed disruptive and violated the University’s policies:

• The University’s outdoor public spaces on campus are open to everyone, but they must adhere to university polices.

• The Freedom of Speech and Expression Standard provides the University may restrict speech that “materially and substantially disrupts” functions.

• The Facilities Use Policy bans temporary structures on campus unless the University approves them.

The Demonstrative Events Policy provides that individuals that occupy an outdoor space on campus are subject to arrest and trespass when they ignore the University’s request for them to leave. On April 28th, the camp was operational at Polk’s Place. The protestors were aware they had violated the University’s policies, but they simply refused to communicate with the University. Administration became concerned about safety and disruptions. Indeed, final exams and graduation were around the corner. Moreover, UNC-CH students had reported “feeling intimidated,” and the campus was “more difficult” to cross. Not only that, but the camp led to property damage and waste accumulation.

Reasoning

In short, the Middle District of North Carolina found for the three, non-affiliated Plaintiffs, and the Court issued an injunction to remove the campus bans. The Plaintiffs won because they showed a “likelihood to succeed” on the merits.

The Plaintiffs argued that these campus bans were an unreasonable burden on First Amendment rights, and the Court agreed after a Polk’s Place forum analysis. The Court asked three questions in the forum analysis:

• Is this protected speech under the First Amendment?
• Is the location a public or nonpublic forum?
• Is the restriction reasonable for the forum?

First, because the camp was political expression, the Court wasted no time in finding that the Plaintiffs’ speech was protected under the First Amendment.

Second, because the University opens their campus to non-affiliated visitors, the Court found that Polk’s Place is a limited public forum. That said, the Plaintiffs were an external group, as they failed to adhere to the University’s policies.

Third, the Court could not say that the campus bans were reasonable based on the forum’s function and other related circumstances. The campus bans must be neutral and reasonable, but neither requirement was really satisfied by the University.

Indeed, the University has “predominantly an educational purpose,” and it must be empowered to offer a reasonably safe and nondisruptive environment for the students, faculty, and staff. The University was concerned about final exams and graduation. Moreover, the University already lifted the campus ban for the UNC-CH student. While the three non-affiliated Plaintiffs wanted to protest at the University, the Court acknowledged they could also exercise their First Amendment rights elsewhere—perhaps at Duke University or Meredith College.

However, the Court found that the campus bans were unreasonable because they had infinite duration, discretionary standards, and the University had no evidence to justify an endless campus ban. Additionally, these factors blurred any evidence that the campus bans were opinion neutral. Therefore, the Court issued an injunction to remove the campus bans.

Key Takeaways

There are several takeaways from the Court’s recent injunction to remove the campus bans. That said, the broader takeaways are highlighted by the groups that represented the Plaintiffs:

• An ACLU of North Carolina Staff Attorney said this was a reminder that public universities are not immune from First Amendment scrutiny, and they have a “unique role” in free speech.

• An Emancipate NC Staff Attorney claimed the First Amendment has been under siege, and this was truly a “significant victory.”

• A Muslim Advocates Senior Staff Attorney said speech in opposition to the genocide in Gaza should have never been silenced.

The University should consider the more practical implications of the injunction. Quite importantly, the University’s policies were not actually unconstitutional. Instead, the campus bans on the Plaintiffs were merely too strong. In March 2026, with more conflict in the Middle East, this University and others in the United States are wise to establish more definite timelines for campus bans with clear standards, and they should increase evidentiary requirements to justify the campus bans. As limited public forums, these precautions would enable them to avoid constitutional claims.

On April 30, the University removed the camp. Administrators arrived before business hours to distribute letters from Chancellor Roberts. In short, the letters expressed the University’s concerns, referenced the University’s pertinent policies, and demanded that the protestors leave. If protestors refused to leave, they would be arrested, suspended, or expelled.

Shortly after, the Plaintiffs were issued trespass citations and campus bans. Later, the student from UNC-CH would have her campus ban removed, and she was permitted to return to the University. But the University enforced the campus bans against the three, non-affiliated protestors.

The Plaintiffs expressed they want to return to the University to protest. Thus, in March 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the University, represented by the groups mentioned in the Overview. In April 2025, the three non-affiliated Plaintiffs asked the Court to remove the campus bans. The Court did.