Crackdown on Palestine solidarity encampments

Introduction

A report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, published on 6th March, outlined the challenges to civic space in the United States, given the context of growing concerns over a global closing of civic space. In particular, the report highlighted threats to freedom of association, namely that government regulations and legislation are increasingly being used to restrict civil society activity.

Peaceful Assembly

Crackdown on peaceful student-led protests

Since October 2023, there has been a troubling trend of efforts to suppress civic freedoms on US college campuses regarding the Palestine-Israel conflict by authorities and the private sector. Despite the overwhelming majority of student protests being peaceful, numerous civic space violations have been recorded, such as mass and arbitrary detentions, excessive use of force by law enforcement agencies and violent clashes involving protesters and counter-protesters.

Protests on campuses became more widespread in mid-April, demanding an end to business with Israel or any company that supports the ongoing war. These peaceful demonstrations form part of a broader student movement targeting universities to denounce their leadership on the grounds of perceived complicity with genocide.

Some of those incidents are summarised below:

• On 15th April, police arrested at least 48 protesters on Yale University’s campus in Connecticut. The protests began three days earlier involving hundreds outside a Board of Trustees meeting. Students placed an encampment of tents outside and were shouting, “Shame on them” and “We will not be moved.” Protesters were charged with first-degree criminal trespass after they refused to vacate Beinecke Plaza. The university also announced that protesting students could face disciplinary actions, including reprimand, probation, or suspension. A similar incident occurred on 1st May when Yale police violently arrested four protesters near the university’s central library. According to reports, the protesters were peacefully dispersing when a police chief tackled one of them and knelt on his back.
• On 25th April, at least 100 people gathered at Emory University, Georgia, to demand divestment from Israel and oppose the controversial Atlanta Public Safety Training Centre (“Cop City”). Students unfolded banners reading “No cop city,” “No genocide,” “Defend the forest,” and “Gaza solidarity encampment.” In response, Atlanta police and Georgia state troopers sprayed pepper balls at protesters and violently arrested at least 28 students and faculty members.
• On 29th April, at the University of Texas, Austin, a protest with hundreds of students advocating for divestment from companies supporting Israel’s military operations in Gaza escalated into violent clashes with law enforcement, resulting in at least 20 detentions, including a photojournalist. Protesters, carrying signs and chanting, were met with excessive force, including officers on horseback and armed with batons, who forcibly dispersed the protest, at times pushing protesters into the street.

• On 30th April, a group of protesters occupied Hamilton Hall on the campus of Columbia University, New York. The protesters barricaded entrances to the building and displayed a banner reading “Free Palestine” from a window. The group publicly announced its intention to remain in the building until their demands were addressed by the university. University officials warned participants of the potential academic and disciplinary consequences, including expulsion, for their actions. Later that day, at the university’s request, New York City Police Department (NYPD) officers equipped with riot shields entered Hamilton Hall, removed protesters from the premises, and dismantled the encampment. As a result, at least 46 people were arrested and charged with trespassing in connection with the building’s occupation. The NYPD reportedly fired a gun inside the campus building. In June 2024, the Manhattan District Attorney dropped charges against most protesters. This event succeeded the 18th April dismantling of another encampment, where over 100 protesters were arrested.

• On 30th April, an encampment at UCLA’s Royce Hall was violently attacked by a group of masked armed people with toxic spray, fireworks and weapons, who dismantled barricades, launched fireworks and pepper-sprayed protesters. The attackers, displaying pro-Israel messages and flags, also physically assaulted those they suspected of supporting the encampment. Despite the escalating violence, police were initially absent. On 2nd May, the UCLA Police Department and partner security agencies violently destroyed the encampment, causing the arrest of more than 200 protesters. The Council on American-Islamic Relations recorded multiple incident reports of people injured by law enforcement, sending several to the hospital: “These ranged from scrapes and bruises to more severe cases — including burns from flashbang fragments, acute respiratory failure from smoke, as well as lacerations and head traumas with suspicion for concussion or intracranial haemorrhage (brain bleed) from rubber bullets.”
• A few days later, on 9th May, the University of California issued a new set of guidelines on determining disciplinary actions, which establishes, among others, that university community members arrested or cited for violations must undergo the appropriate conduct or disciplinary review process. According to the Davis Faculty Association, the largest independent organisation representing the faculty at the campuses of the University of California, the guideline “fails to distinguish between arrests, criminal charging, and conviction of any crime, and fails to account for whether police policies or patterns are consistent or fair. If implemented, this is an extraordinary outsourcing of disciplinary standards to law enforcement that immediately threatens faculty welfare.” Once again, on 10th June, law enforcement officers arrested at least two dozen people for alleged wilful obstruction of university operations during a protest demanding an end to repressive policing, targeted measures against pro-Palestinian advocacy and amnesty for activists sanctioned by UCLA.
• On 1st May, during the third day of the encampment at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, campus and state police dismantled the protest following a call from university administrators. Faculty members on the front lines faced physical confrontations, including Professor Samer Alatout, who reported being pushed to the ground and struck multiple times in the face before returning to the site with visible injuries. Professor Sami Schalk, also arrested, later disclosed on social media that she suffered bruising, a sprained shoulder and potential internal injuries requiring further medical attention.
• On 10th May, Penn Police and Philadelphia Police dismantled a 16-day encampment on College Green, University of Pennsylvania, arresting 33 protesters, including nine Penn students. Students faced disciplinary threats from the administration and tensions with pro-Israeli counter-protesters. The encampment was cleared following the arrests, and detainees were processed and released. On the same day, police used tear gas against student protesters at the University of Arizona, Tucson.
• On 21st May, University of Michigan law enforcement officers dismantled the encampment in Ann Arbor, removing students and community members after issuing verbal warnings. According to media reports, police officers used pepper spray and tear gas against protesters, with at least four people arrested. This occurred after the graduation event at the University.
• On 12th June, students at Oregon State University ended a five-day demonstration at the administration building on campus, where they had set up the protest calling for an end to the Israeli assault on Gaza.

The Appeal, an independent news organisation, reported that law enforcement detained over 3,200 people during the encampments in April and May 2024. In Manhattan alone, NYPD officers arrested more than 600 protesters, representing roughly 20 per cent of the national total. The Appeal also documented a harsh response to peaceful demonstrations at the University of Indiana, where authorities stationed snipers on rooftops near the protest sites.

Across various universities in the US, students, faculty and staff participating in peaceful protests have been met with disproportionate consequences such as suspensions, expulsions, criminal charges and threats to their personal safety. In particular, disciplinary sanctions have been imposed by university administrations. In November 2023, at Columbia University, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) were reportedly unlawfully suspended following a pro-Palestine peaceful demonstration and art installation. According to the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU):

“This action follows Columbia University’s choice to single out and unlawfully suspend SJP and JVP for participating in a peaceful student demonstration and temporary art installation in support of Palestinian rights late last year. While private universities in New York are not bound by the First Amendment, New York’s highest court has established that the disciplinary actions of any university in New York against its students or student organisations must proceed in accordance with the university’s own rules and guidelines.”

Similarly, on 18th April 2024, three students at Barnard College, including Isra Hirsi, the daughter of U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar, were suspended for their participation in protests.

On 27th April 2024, four students from Cornell University, including Momodou Taal, faced temporary suspensions for organising a campus encampment. Media reports indicated that some students and professors have been subjected to doxxing and threats without adequate institutional protection, exacerbating their vulnerability. Furthermore, on 29th April 2024, an Emory University economics professor was brutally arrested during a protest and subsequently charged with battery. Similarly, on 15th May 2024, Willoughby-Herard, an Associate Professor of Global and International Studies at the University of California, Irvine, and a former president of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, was forcibly subdued, pushed to the ground and handcuffed by law enforcement while observing a protest at the University of California. These incidents occurred despite her role as an observer.

On 22nd May 2024, Harvard University’s governing board barred 13 students from graduating, citing alleged policy violations linked to their participation in a protest at Harvard Yard. According to media reports, this decision contradicts an agreement reached on 14th May 2024 between university administrators and the student coalition. Under this agreement, students dismantled their encampment after assurances from university officials, including Vice President Garber, that no punitive measures would follow. “While we will not be returning to this school, we hope that our friends carry the liberatory legacy of the Gaza solidarity encampment alive and strive even harder for divestment,” said Asmer Asrar Safi, one of the 13 students blocked from receiving a diploma.

Protesters have also been facing vilification campaigns that mischaracterise their lawful assemblies as illicit and dehumanise those involved. Peaceful demonstrations calling for an end to economic ties with Israel and the war on Gaza are being framed in media and political discourse as violent and antisemitic, with figures such as President Joe Biden publicly labelling the protests as such. According to media reports, members of Congress are purportedly urging universities to crack down on student activism, including by coordinating with federal agencies like the FBI.

On 10th May 2024, seven United Nations human rights experts expressed concerns about the curbing of students’ freedoms to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression during protests against the war in Gaza. The reported restrictions include summons and sanctions with severe repercussions, such as suspension, loss of university accommodation, or adverse effects on immigration status. The experts highlighted that these measures appear to disproportionately target individuals, reflecting broader efforts to silence dissenting voices critical of U.S. and Israeli government policies, as well as university stances on these issues.

The experts further raised alarms over political pressures on academics and universities, noting that such actions compromise academic freedom and institutional autonomy. These principles are essential to freedom of opinion, expression, association and peaceful assembly. They warned that repressing dissent and subjecting academics to public attacks could foster self-censorship, thereby diminishing the crucial societal role of universities. They also urged the United States to uphold its constitutional obligations to safeguard freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

Lawmakers and universities target student demonstrations

Between May and June 2024, federal lawmakers introduced at least eight bills in response to pro-Palestine demonstrations. Notable proposals, such as H.R. 8322 focus on foreign students, mandating visa revocation for individuals arrested for “rioting,” “unlawful protest,” or participation in encampments on university campuses: “The Secretary of State shall revoke the F, J, or M visa of any alien who has been arrested for rioting or unlawful protest or who has been arrested while establishing, participating in, or promoting an encampment on the campus of an institution of higher education on or since October 7, 2023.”

Similarly, H.R.9102 and S.4302 suggest punitive measures targeting student protesters, including denying access to federal financial aid. These bills, if approved, would squash freedom of assembly.

Further, universities have introduced restrictive policies limiting protest activities on campus, including bans on protests and the imposition of stringent time, place, and manner restrictions, as seen in recent announcements by American University and the University of Pennsylvania. On 25th January 2024, American University announced new guidelines banning indoor protests and campus postings, among other measures. Criticised by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Education (FIRE), these vague and overbroad restrictions conflict with the institution’s obligations to uphold civic freedoms.

On 7th June 2024, the University of Pennsylvania approved the “Temporary Standards and Procedures for Campus Events and Demonstrations”, explicitly prohibiting encampments and overnight demonstrations, classifying unauthorised activities as trespassing. This policy followed the clearing of a pro-Palestinian encampment that resulted in 33 arrests in May 2024. According to the FIRE, the timing and specificity of these measures suggest they may target particular forms of expression, calling into question their neutrality.

Such measures undermine academic institutions’ historic role in fostering spaces for open dialogue and are part of a broader trend of restricting freedom of assembly in the United States. Since 2017, 21 states have passed laws increasing penalties for protest-related activities.

Hunger strike for Palestine divestment

On 2nd February 2024, nineteen Brown University students initiated an 8-day hunger strike, drawing inspiration from the university’s 1986 anti-apartheid movement. They called for the university to divest from companies profiting from Israel's occupation of Palestine. The group identified specific companies for divestment and demanded Brown recognise the “social harm” they claimed these companies were causing.

University president Christina Paxson, in a letter dated 4th February, expressed concern for the students’ well-being but maintained the endowment's neutrality in matters of "political advocacy." This position frustrated the students, especially given Brown’s history of divestments, including those related to South African apartheid and the Darfur genocide. The hunger strike ended on 10th February without achieving a vote on divestment.

Nationwide protests block highways: Over 70 detained across US cities

On 15th April 2024, nationwide protests resulted in the obstruction of motorways across multiple cities. Police detained 20 protesters at the Golden Gate Bridge in California following their refusal to comply with orders to end the blockade. In Oregon, authorities detained 52 protesters on charges of disorderly conduct. In Chicago, protesters linked arms to block lanes of Interstate 190 leading to O’Hare International Airport, leading to dozens of detentions for traffic obstruction.

Employee protests over Google-Israeli contract lead to dismissals

On 17th April 2024, authorities arrested nine Google employees during sit-in protests at the company’s offices in New York and Sunnyvale, California. Protesters opposed Project Nimbus, a $1.2 billion contract between Google, Amazon and the Israeli government to deliver cloud computing services to government ministries and the military. They argued that the project would enable increased surveillance of Palestinians and contribute to their displacement.

The following day, Google terminated 28 employees and, within a few days, dismissed over 20 more. Company leaders stated that these actions addressed breaches of workplace policies, such as disrupting operations and blocking facility access during the protests. Activists, however, described the dismissals as retaliatory, claiming that some of those terminated had not participated in the protests. They pledged to intensify their opposition to Project Nimbus. Google has previously disciplined employees for protest-related actions, such as a 2018 walkout over workplace harassment policies. In March 2024, the company dismissed a cloud engineer who had protested against an Israel technology event in New York City.

Protesters chain themselves to construction equipment

On 5th February 2024, two protesters in Atlanta chained themselves to construction equipment at a Midtown site linked to the contentious “Cop City” training centre. Organised by the activist group Drop Cop City, the action sought to pressure Brasfield & Gorrie, the contracting company, to terminate its involvement in the project. This $110 million training facility has faced sustained criticism over its cost, environmental impact and implications for police militarisation. Protests against the project have been ongoing since its announcement in 2021 and were previously documented in CIVICUS updates.

The protesters, aged 23 and 28, used improvised locks and chains to immobilise themselves for several hours before Atlanta police extracted and arrested them. Both were charged with criminal trespass. Atlanta Police Chief Darin Schierbaum dismissed the demonstration as a “publicity stunt,” while Drop Cop City defended it as a vital escalation to highlight the project’s detrimental effects.

Flight attendants protest at major airlines for improved wages

On 13th February 2024, frustrated by stagnant wages and contrasting with recent pay raises for pilots, flight attendants from three major unions staged protests at 30 US airports. The unions representing the protesters, including the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) and the Transport Workers Union, made it clear that it is not a strike but rather a national day of action, as federal law makes it difficult for airline unions to conduct legal strikes.

The protesters demanded new contracts and higher wages, arguing their contributions during the pandemic and to passenger safety deserve recognition. American Airlines, the only carrier without a finalised agreement, emphasised their respect for the protest and commitment to reaching a deal.

United Airlines and Alaska Airlines expressed similar sentiments, highlighting upcoming negotiation sessions and ongoing discussions. Southwest Airlines emphasised their tentative agreement with one union while acknowledging ongoing negotiations with another. With pilots at some airlines receiving significant pay increases, flight attendants feel undervalued and seek fairer compensation and improved working conditions.

Climate change protesters dump red powder on U.S. Constitution

On 8th February 2024, environmental activists Donald Zepeda and Jackson Green (also known as “Kroegeor”, affiliated with the advocacy group Declare Emergency, threw red powder on the display case housing the U.S. Constitution at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. The act, which aimed to raise awareness about the climate crisis, did not damage the document but led to the temporary closure of the rotunda for cleaning. “We all deserve clean air, water, food and a liveable climate,” one of the activists said.

On 22nd February 2024, a court ordered Green to be detained in the D.C. jail after he violated the terms of a prior release, which was linked to charges he had previously faced in a separate case of alleged vandalism at the National Gallery of Art in November 2023. On 28th February 2024, authorities detained Zepeda in Raleigh, North Carolina.

On 1st March 2024, both activists were formally charged with destruction of government property under federal law:

“Zepeda and Green are charged with felony destruction of government property for dumping a fine red powder over the document’s display case in the Rotunda of the Archives building. The cost of cleaning up after the stunt, which was intended to draw attention to Climate Change, has already exceeded $50,000. In addition, the act closed the Rotunda for four days”.

The case remains under consideration by a federal court. Zepeda has remained under house arrest since 1st March 2024, while Green was released on 21st May 2024 after serving 93 days in detention. Both activists are awaiting further legal proceedings. If found guilty, they could incur a fine of up to $250,000, a prison sentence of up to 10 years, or both.

Rallies at Supreme Court to demand abortion rights

On 26th March 2024, hundreds protested outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., to demand continued access to mifepristone, a medication used for abortion and miscarriage care. Protesters unfurled a banner reading “We the People Support Medication Abortion” and delivered petitions with over 500,000 signatures urging the Court to reject restrictions on mifepristone. Capitol police arrested 13 protesters for allegedly “illegally blocking roads and then a walkway” during the demonstration.

The case at issue contests the regulatory authority of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with anti-abortion organisations claiming that mifepristone is unsafe despite extensive safety data and FDA approval spanning two decades. Experts warned that a ruling against the FDA could undermine its authority and deter innovation in drug development, setting a dangerous legal precedent.

The legal landscape of abortion access in the country has undergone significant changes following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June 2022, which overturned Roe v. Wade. This ruling eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion, prompting many states to implement new restrictions and enforce pre-existing bans.

Hunger strikers at Buffalo Detention Facility face retaliation and abuse

On 7th June 2024, around 40 people detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility (BFDF) initiated a hunger strike to protest the facility's policies, including being confined to their cells for about 18 hours daily and the recent discontinuation of free phone calls to family members. In response, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials allegedly violated constitutional protections and ICE’s operating standards by threatening and physically assaulting strikers, placing them in solitary confinement and denying them access to jobs, recreation and the law library.

A few days later, on 10th June, five human rights organisations—including Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York, the New York Civil Liberties Union, the Centre for Constitutional Rights and Justice for Migrant Families—filed a federal civil rights complaint. The complaint, submitted to the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), outlined allegations of unlawful retaliation and abuse against the hunger strikers and requested an immediate investigation into these incidents at New York’s largest immigrant detention centre.

“People detained by ICE at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility have every right to speak out peacefully about the cruel, unjust conditions of their incarceration. ICE’s abhorrent, punitive response to people advocating for their rights is not only inhumane — it’s unconstitutional. We urge the federal government to address the serious constitutional violations in this complaint and ICE’s long-standing practice of squashing hunger strikes through unlawful retaliation. All people detained by ICE must be able to exercise their rights without repercussion or intimidation,” said Amy Belsher, Director of Immigrants’ Rights Litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union.

Arrests of environmental activists protesting Mountain Valley Pipeline

On 1st February 2024, Virginia State Police arrested two activists protesting the construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) in Montgomery County, Virginia. The incident is part of an ongoing resistance movement against the pipeline, which has sparked widespread concern over its environmental and social impacts in the Appalachian Mountains.

Julie D. Dreamer was arrested after being found secured to a helicopter with a “sleeping dragon” device, a tool used to delay removal by authorities. Virginia State Police stated that Dreamer initially refused commands to release herself but eventually complied after nearly two hours. She was charged with interfering with property rights. Jordan Mays was also cited for obstructing passage and other related actions. Both are being held at Montgomery County Jail without bond.

Dreamer emphasised the importance of water conservation and cultural ties to the land: “Without water, there is no life. In my culture, the women are the backbone of our society, and right now it’s the women who are standing up in all these frontlines. I keep coming here because this land reminds me of my ancestral lands in the Black Hills.”

The February arrests are not isolated incidents. On 4th March 2024, two additional activists, identified only as River and Andy, conducted a similar protest by locking themselves in a vehicle and blocking access to the site. They unfurled a banner reading, “Older Than the Hills: Water is Life,” halting construction activities for over 10 hours. The same day, seven activists were arrested on the other side of the mountain for entering a construction site. They were jailed for two to five days before being allowed to post bail and be released. In early March, a young activist halted construction of the MVP in Virginia for nearly 36 hours by climbing inside it, and was later charged with misdemeanours and released on bail.

First proposed in 2014 by Mountain Valley LLC, the MVP was immediately resisted by many opponents, including farmers in West Virginia, Indigenous tribes in North Carolina and environmental activists nationwide. The pipeline, which aims to transport natural gas from northern West Virginia to southern Virginia, cuts through ecologically sensitive areas such as national forests, waterways, and sections of the Appalachian Trail.

Protesters detained in “Summer of Heat on Wall Street” demonstrations

Since April 2024, climate activists have been protesting at Citigroup’s headquarters in New York to denounce the bank’s large-scale financing of fossil fuel companies. This campaign has targeted Citigroup and its subsidiary, highlighting concerns over environmental impacts. Key incidents from the protests are outlined below:

• In April, https://www.commondreams.org/news/citibank-climate-protest-2667882434
• On 10th June, 150 protesters gathered in Manhattan, marching along the sidewalks and holding signs as they made their way to the building’s entrance. Alice Nascimento, Campaign Director of New York Communities for Change, declared: “The climate crisis is not in the distant future, it’s here. New Yorkers have experienced it. Institutions like CitiBank are what’s driving that.” The protest, monitored by the NYPD, led to tensions near the bank’s building entrance. As a result, police detained 23 protesters, citing disorderly conduct.

• On 14th June, protests continued for a fourth consecutive day, blocking the bank’s entrance with over 50 rocking chairs, resulting in the detention of 56 people, many of whom were senior citizens. The protest was organised by Third Act under the “Rocking Chair Rebellion” banner.
• On 28th June, 61 protesters were detained during a protest at Citigroup’s headquarters in New York City. Organised by leaders from the Gulf South, the demonstration drew over 1,000 participants who marched through the streets, criticising the bank’s environmental practices with chants and signs like “Citi Earns While the World Burns.” Two protesters

Expression

Attacks and arrests against journalists while reporting on pro-Palestine protests

As mentioned in the section on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, as protests take place across the United States, journalists covering the protests have also faced challenges or obstructions in their ability to report safely. From 7th October 2023 to 30th April 2024, the U.S. Freedom Tracker recorded at least 13 incidents of arrest or detention, 11 assaults and 3 cases of public vilification. Notably, the documented assaults on journalists in June 2024 are set to exceed the total recorded in the entirety of last year, and we are only halfway through the year.

Key incidents are summarised below:

• On 10th February 2024, journalist Reed Dunlea was tackled and arrested while reporting on a pro-Palestinian protest outside the Brooklyn Museum in New York City. Police officers threw Dunlea to the ground, damaging his equipment and charged him with resisting arrest. Dunlea, who was covering the event for his podcast, Scene Report, arrived at the protest around 1:30 p.m. and was arrested within 45 minutes. As NYPD officers conducted multiple rounds of arrests, Dunlea attempted to stay on the edge of the police line but found himself in the middle of the altercation, where officers tackled him despite his identification as a journalist and possession of a city-issued press credential. Footage captured by bystanders shows at least three officers dragging Dunlea into the street and pinning him down. His recording equipment was damaged during the arrest and the audio he was capturing at the time is missing. Dunlea was held until shortly after midnight and released on a charge of resisting arrest. He attributed the intensified police response to recent successful pro-Palestinian protests in the city. The New York Civil Liberties Union criticised the police’s handling of the protest, suggesting it was intended to provoke tension and arrests. The New York Police Department did not respond to requests for comment. Dunlea was ordered to appear for a preliminary hearing on 1st March 2024.

• At the University of Texas at Austin, protests turned violent when police and protesters clashed on 25th April (see peaceful assembly). During the protest, police arrested a Fox 7 photojournalist on criminal trespassing charges. The Travis County Attorney’s Office dismissed this charge the following day. On 26th April, authorities filed a felony assault charge against Sanchez, alleging he struck a trooper with his camera, but they dismissed this charge on 30th April. That same day, two new misdemeanour charges—assault and interference with public duties—were filed.
• On 1st May, police arrested a student journalist who was reporting on a pro-Palestine encampment at Dartmouth College. The student faced trespassing charges but these were dropped on 7th May.
• On 6th May, police arrested an independent journalist who was documenting how police detained at least 40 protesters at the University of California, Los Angeles.
• On 23rd June, a man struck freelance photojournalist Jon Putman’s camera while covering clashes between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli protesters in Los Angeles, California. At least nine journalists faced assaults during the incident, with one person arrested for possessing a spiked post.

On 1st May 2024, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) urged authorities to ensure journalists can safely cover protests amid rising tensions over pro-Palestinian demonstrations on U.S. campuses.

Free speech under threat: Reprisals for speaking out in solidarity with Palestine

As civil society advocates for a ceasefire in Gaza and expresses solidarity with the Palestinian people, there are emerging concerns over attempts to silence dissent and suppress freedom of expression.

According to The Intercept, at least a dozen professors have faced reprisals for their pro-Palestinian speech, including suspensions and contract terminations. Interviews with campus labour activists and academic associations indicate a pattern of politically motivated repression. In April 2024, Danny Shaw, a professor of Latin American and Caribbean studies at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, was informed by administrators that he would not be reappointed to his longstanding adjunct position. Shaw attributed his dismissal to right-wing, pro-Israel online harassment.

On 15th April 2024, the University of Southern California (USC) cancelled the commencement speech of Class of 2024 valedictorian Asna Tabassum. USC attributed the decision to unprecedented security threats and harassment from pro-Israel critics, which the university claimed made it impossible to ensure safety. The Greater Los Angeles Area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA) denounced the move as a capitulation to anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian hate, arguing it undermined freedom of expression and set a troubling precedent for silencing voices advocating for human rights. Tabassum expressed disappointment, stating the decision reflects the success of a targeted campaign to silence her. CAIR-LA called for USC to reinstate the speech and uphold its obligation to protect its students from discriminatory intimidation.

On 3rd June 2024, the Columbia Law Review board of directors shut down the Law Review’s website entirely over the publication of an article by Palestinian human rights lawyer Rabea Eghbariah. The article, titled “Toward Nakba as a Legal Concept,” explored the Nakba, genocide in Gaza and apartheid in the West Bank as crimes against humanity. According to a 2023 report in The Intercept, Eghbariah initially submitted an earlier version of the article to the Harvard Law Review, which the journal later refused to publish. The Nation published the article in November 2023.

Student-led Columbia Law Review editors voted in December 2023 to commission a piece on Palestinian legal issues and later formed a leadership committee that approved Rabea Eghbariah’s article for publication. The editorial committee withheld the draft from broader membership and administrators until 2nd June 2024 to minimise leaks and controversy. On Monday, 3rd June 2024, the Columbia Law Review published Eghbariah’s article in its latest issue online. Hours later, the website was replaced with a note stating it was under maintenance.

The Board of Directors said it had only learned about the article the previous afternoon and it was not subject to sufficient review. In contrast, the editors used a smaller committee and an irregular process to edit “Toward Nakba as a Legal Concept” to mitigate censorship risks. The editors’ committee defended its approach, emphasising rigorous editing and fact-checking, involving over 30 editors and hundreds of hours of work.

“To my knowledge, this is the first time ever that the board of directors of the Law Review has intervened in any way in the publication of an article,” said Katherine Franke, a Columbia law professor who supported the piece’s publication.

Tensions have escalated at the City University of New York (CUNY) Law School following an antisemitism investigation launched in October 2023. Faculty emails disclosed to private investigators highlighted queries about event specifics and previous activities, including a discussion on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Faculty members, including law professor Babe Howell, have raised concerns that the investigation may be aimed at suppressing dissent, particularly pro-Palestinian viewpoints. Some faculty have described the inquiry as a “witch hunt.”

A private law firm appointed by the state to examine allegations of antisemitism at CUNY has conducted interviews with faculty, reviewed event documentation and attended faculty meetings without prior notice, according to representatives from the faculty union, academic staff and administrators.

The situation at CUNY reflects broader tensions between academic institutions, political discourse and external pressures. Corporate leaders have begun withdrawing financial support from universities perceived as inadequately addressing antisemitism. For instance, New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft recently ceased donations to Columbia University. Some executives are contemplating further actions to influence university policies. Proposed strategies include treating universities as vendors, with corporations potentially refusing to hire graduates from institutions that fail to adopt decisive measures against antisemitism. Another suggestion involves Wall Street and private equity firms leveraging their management of university endowments, conditioning their services on institutional commitments to addressing antisemitism.

Allegations of censorship over pro-Palestinian solidarity expressions

On 3rd May 2024, the Board of Directors of Oolite Arts, a Miami-based non-profit organisation, reportedly removed an art installation titled “How we live like water” by artist Vũ Hoàng Khánh Nguyên (known as Vũ). This decision followed complaints alleging the art installation contained elements of hate speech and political content.

The artwork, featured in the Windows @ Walgreens programme, incorporated the phrase “From the River to the Sea,” represented through imagery of the Jordan River and the Atlantic Ocean. Vũ stated that Oolite only informed them of the artwork’s removal after it had already been taken down:

“The piece was an expression of solidarity with oppressed people of the world and a call for peace and justice in the face of ongoing injustices. I am disheartened to see Oolite Arts, an institution who claims to support artists, misinterpret and censor my work. The arbitrary removal of my artwork sets a dangerous precedent for censorship within contemporary arts institutions and sends a chilling message to artists everywhere that we are not free to express ourselves. We cannot allow censorship to become the norm within artistic communities, nor can we condone actions that stifle creativity and silence marginalised voices.”

An open letter accompanying Vũ’s statement, signed by over 300 South Florida artists and arts professionals, condemned Oolite’s decision to remove the artwork and urged the organisation to reconsider its actions.

This incident followed the passage of a resolution (H.RES.883) by the House of Representatives condemning the Pro-Palestinian chant, which deemed the phrase “From the River to the Sea” antisemitic and divisive. Republican Anthony D’Esposito introduced the resolution, which was approved on 16th April 2024 by a substantial majority of 377 votes to 44:

“This resolution expresses the sense that the slogan ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ is antisemitic and must be strongly condemned. The resolution states that the slogan is divisive and does a disservice to Israelis, Palestinians, and all those in the region who seek peace”.

The situation is emblematic of wider concerns about the suppression of pro-Palestinian voices by the private sector. Five UN experts expressed concerns over content moderation policies on major platforms such as Meta, X and Google, highlighting their potential role in censoring pro-Palestinian content and restricting freedom of expression. The experts called on the U.S. government to ensure content moderation complies with international human rights law, particularly articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The broader context includes the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, which underscores the accountability of technology companies in preventing disinformation, hate speech and discrimination that could exacerbate human rights violations.

House passes Antisemitism Awareness Act amid concerns over free speech on campuses

On 2nd May 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act (H.R. 6090), a contentious piece of legislation that critics warn could restrict free speech on college campuses under the guise of combating antisemitism. The bill, now awaiting Senate deliberation, has sparked intense debate over its potential impact on academic freedoms, student activism and the boundaries of anti-discrimination protections.

The legislation seeks to incorporate the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism into Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While proponents argued this move is essential for addressing the rising tide of antisemitism in the United States, detractors, including civil liberties organisations, caution that the bill’s broad language risks conflating legitimate criticism of the Israeli government with discriminatory conduct:

“The House’s approval of this misguided and harmful bill is a direct attack on the First Amendment. Addressing rising antisemitism is critically important, but sacrificing Americans’ free speech rights is not the way to solve that problem. This bill would throw the full weight of the federal government behind an effort to stifle criticism of Israel and risks politicising the enforcement of federal civil rights statutes precisely when their robust protections are most needed. The Senate must block this bill that undermines First Amendment protections before it’s too late,” said Christopher Anders, director of ACLU’s Democracy and Technology Policy Division.

Book bans surge, threatening freedom of expression

On 16th April 2024, PEN America, a free expression organisation, published a new report revealing an alarming rise in book bans across public schools in the United States, documenting more than 4,000 instances in just the first half of the 2023–2024 academic year. This figure already surpasses the total number of bans reported during the previous academic year, highlighting an accelerating trend in educational censorship.

The report tracks bans across 52 school districts in 23 states, with Florida emerging as the epicentre. Over 3,100 bans have been implemented in 11 districts within the state, far outpacing other regions. Wisconsin, Iowa and Texas are also notable contributors to the wave of restrictions.

The targeted materials often focus on issues of race, racism, LGBTQI+ people—particularly those involving transgender experiences—and sexual violence. Such works are increasingly being challenged under claims of “obscenity,” a tactic that critics argue is designed to suppress narratives addressing societal inequities and the lived experiences of marginalised groups.

PEN America has recorded over 10,000 book bans from mid-2021 to December 2023, with the report noting a troubling shift: bans are no longer isolated efforts by individual parents but part of coordinated campaigns, often supported by legislation or administrative policies that favour censorship.

“By suppressing these stories, censors seek to delegitimise experiences that resonate deeply with young people. Just as we’ve seen the power of America’s youth in rallying around causes such as gun violence prevention, they’re refusing to yield to the censorship of book bans threatening their peers and communities,” said Kasey Meehan, Freedom to Read Program Director at PEN America.

New legislation raises concern over freedom of expression

On 24th April 2024, President Joe Biden signed the Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024 (H.R.815), marking a turning point in the ongoing debate over data privacy, national security and freedom of expression. In response, on 7th May 2024, TikTok filed a lawsuit challenging the Act’s constitutionality in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The Act imposes stringent restrictions on data brokers and online platforms, prohibiting the sale, transfer, or sharing of Americans’ sensitive personal information with entities tied to “foreign adversaries.” It also grants the president authority to block communications platforms used by millions of Americans. Among its most controversial provisions, the law initiates proceedings to ban TikTok unless its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, relinquishes ownership—a measure the company considers legally and practically unworkable.

The FIRE highlighted the potential risks, stating: “The law not only threatens TikTok’s U.S. operation but also subjects other online platforms to onerous restrictions, including possible bans, if they maintain even tenuous links to certain foreign nations.”

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) highlighted TikTok’s role in undermining the reliability of online information but criticised the new regulation for aiming exclusively at its Chinese ties, overlooking wider concerns. RSF called for a comprehensive framework to safeguard democratic information spaces while ensuring public access to reliable information: “The legal framework proposed by RSF includes a reciprocity mechanism designed to encourage openness and to promote independent, pluralistic and reliable information in all countries involved”.

Experts warned that the Act’s focus on content moderation and the dissemination of information raises questions about censorship and the limits of government authority in regulating digital platforms: “While the government has suggested TikTok poses vague national security risks, it has not yet publicly justified the need for the extreme measure of banning TikTok. It also has not contended with the well-established precedent that Americans have a First Amendment right to receive foreign propaganda. The American people deserve an explicit explanation of the immediate risks TikTok poses. And the First Amendment would require the government to justify this ban if the current legislation becomes law and is challenged in court.”

Mississippi Today challenges court order to disclose sources

On 20th May 2024, a county judge ordered Mississippi Today, a non-profit news outlet, to disclose privileged documents, including source material, in a defamation lawsuit by former Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant. The lawsuit centres on Mississippi Today’s 2022 Pulitzer Prize-winning investigation, “The Backchannel,” which alleged Bryant misused $77 million in welfare funds for personal gain. In response, the news outlet appealed the order on 6th June 2024.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) condemned the judge’s decision, describing it as a critical threat to press freedom. Bryant seeks access to internal documents, including source material, despite the investigative findings remaining unchallenged within the statutory period: “It is dangerous and deeply disturbing that Bryant’s team is seeking to compel Mississippi Today to turn over troves of its privileged documents, including reporting materials,” said CPJ U.S., Canada and Caribbean Program Coordinator Katherine Jacobsen.

California court dismisses Elon Musk’s lawsuit against online rights advocacy organisation

On 25th March 2024, a California federal court judge dismissed Elon Musk’s lawsuit against the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), an organisation advocating human rights online. The lawsuit alleged that CCDH violated X’s terms of service through automated data collection (scraping) “to inform the public of instances when X failed to remove posts that CCDH deemed disinformation and misinformation.” Musk’s legal team argued that CCDH’s data collection methods were illegal and accused the organisation of driving advertisers away from X through its publications.

However, human rights organisations and legal experts saw the lawsuit as an attempt to stifle criticism. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asserted that scraping for public interest research is essential for enabling public discourse on critical issues such as disinformation: “Scraping when done in the context of public interest research is part and parcel of the subsequent public interest speech it enables.”

According to the Guardian, the US district judge Charles Breyer dismissed the lawsuit under California’s anti-SLAPP law to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation. In his ruling, the judge highlighted the punitive nature of X’s legal claims:

“Sometimes it is unclear what is driving a litigation, and only by reading between the lines of a complaint can one attempt to surmise a plaintiff’s true purpose. Other times, a complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing that there can be no mistaking that purpose. This case represents the latter circumstance. This case is about punishing the defendants for their speech.”

The dismissal of the case sends a strong message about the importance of protecting free speech and independent research work: “Society needs reliable and ethical research into social media platforms, and often that research relies on being able to study publicly available posts. Musk’s lawsuit imperilled that kind of research by threatening it with ruinous liability, but thankfully, the court shut down his case,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.

Association

Engineer claims wrongful firing and content suppression

In February 2024, Ferras Hamad—a Palestinian-American software engineer employed at Meta since 2021— was reportedly wrongfully terminated by Meta, the parent company of social media platforms Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. He alleged his dismissal followed attempts to address software bugs that disproportionately suppressed pro-Palestinian content on Instagram. One cited instance involved a video posted by Palestinian journalist Motaz Azaiza that was flagged as pornographic despite depicting destruction in Gaza.

In response, on 4th June 2024, Hamad filed a lawsuit against Meta, detailing an alleged pattern of bias against Palestinian employees. Hamad’s claims shed light on longstanding criticisms of Meta’s content moderation policies regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Public defenders push back against federal inquiry

On 29th January 2024, the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce (the Committee) requested extensive documents and information from the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys (UAW Local 2325), NYC’s union of over 3,000 public defenders and legal workers, as part of an alleged oversight inquiry concerning a vote on a controversial resolution. UAW Local 2325 rejected the request, asserting that it constituted an intrusion on the union’s constitutional rights and a misrepresentation of the resolution.

The Committee subsequently issued a subpoena on 11th March 2024, demanding documents related to the resolution. UAW Local 2325 argued that the inquiry and subpoena contained unfounded accusations, distorted the resolution’s purpose and mischaracterised the union’s mission to advocate for its members, clients and vulnerable communities. The union further defended its resolution, asserting that it was passed democratically after full member notice and debate, with 1,067 votes in favour and 570 opposed. It rejected claims of antisemitism, stressing that criticism of Israel’s policies is not antisemitism and that 119 Jewish members signed a letter reaffirming their support for the resolution.

UAW Local 2325 contended that the Committee’s inquiry sought to suppress its members’ constitutional freedoms to free speech and association, particularly regarding their advocacy for Palestinian rights.

“This inquiry is a McCarthyite silencing tactic meant to chastise lawyers and legal services workers for their protected political speech and intimidate other unions from speaking out. The Committee’s attempt to stifle workers’ speech because it doesn’t agree with their viewpoints is a clear government overreach. Union members have the constitutional right to take political stances and express themselves through voting,” said Lupe Aguirre, Senior Staff Attorney at the NYCLU.

The union urged the Committee to respect democratic principles and refrain from interfering in union affairs.

UN experts condemn U.S. intimidation of ICC over war crimes investigation

On 8th May 2024, three UN experts voiced concern over reported harassment and intimidation of personnel at the International Criminal Court (ICC) by senior U.S. public officials. These actions allegedly stem from the ICC’s efforts to investigate credible allegations of war crimes and other international crimes in the Occupied Palestinian Territories involving Israeli officials, Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups.

The UN experts highlighted specific instances of intimidation and public vilification. On 29th April 2024, the White House Press Secretary reiterated that the ICC lacks jurisdiction in these matters, affirming the administration’s opposition to the investigation. House Speaker Mike Johnson characterised the ICC’s plans as “disgraceful” and urged the administration to intervene and halt the ICC’s actions.

On 24th April 2024, 12 U.S. Republican senators sent a letter to the ICC explicitly threatening sanctions against the Court if it issues arrest warrants against Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The letter warned of ending American support for the ICC, imposing sanctions on its personnel and associates, and barring them and their families from the United States.

According to UN experts, “harassment and intimidation of court officials exceed the permissible limits of freedom of expression under international human rights law.” This issue is particularly concerning when such actions originate from government officials. Certain statements made by these officials may interfere with judicial independence and the proper functioning of the legal profession.

Activists targeted in Atlanta Cop City protests

On 8th February 2024, law enforcement agencies, including Georgia police, the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), conducted pre-dawn raids on three homes of activists in Atlanta. The operations targeted activists reportedly linked to the “Stop Cop City” movement opposing the construction of the Atlanta Public Safety Training Centre, a controversial $110 million facility often referred to as “Cop City.” These raids occurred shortly after protesters chained themselves to construction equipment at the site (see peaceful assembly).

According to the Atlanta Community Press Collective, law enforcement executed one arrest warrant and three search warrants across two homes in Lakewood Heights and one in Starlight Heights. The search warrants, issued by a magistrate judge in the United States District Court of Northern Georgia, sought evidence related to alleged arson and vandalism incidents at the facility. Atlanta Police Chief Darin Schierbaum stated that the arrest warrant pertained to a July 2023 arson targeting police motorcycles.

During the raids, officers reportedly employed aggressive tactics. Witnesses stated that a man was dragged by his hair and a woman was removed from her home without a shirt. All activists at one of the residences were placed in flex cuffs, photographed by Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) agents, and later released without arrest. A second activist was detained for several hours at police headquarters but was not formally charged.

Confiscated items included laptops, mobile phones, memory cards, a modem and materials promoting the “Defend the Atlanta Forest” campaign. The search warrant alleged violations of several federal statutes, including destruction of motor vehicle facilities, conspiracy, solicitation to commit a crime of violence, and racketeering-related offences. However, no charges connected to these statutes were announced.

The nature of these raids has drawn significant criticism. Activists and community members argued that such tactics are intended to intimidate and suppress opposition to the Cop City project. They contended that the use of force against peaceful protesters and the seizure of personal property reflect a broader strategy to stifle dissent.

Following the incident, activists have reported the use of various surveillance tactics by the Atlanta police, including tailing people in cars, blasting sirens outside bedroom windows and shining headlights into homes during the night. Although no arrests have been made, residents have expressed confusion and concern about their legal protections regarding privacy and freedom from harassment.

Court rejects injunction against Amazon in union support case

On 12th June, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s order that barred Amazon from firing union supporters, a significant development in the ongoing struggle between the e-commerce giant and organised labour. The order, initially issued in 2022 by U.S. District Judge Diane Gujarati, was aimed at protecting workers involved in unionising efforts but was deemed overly broad and unsupported by sufficient evidence, according to the appeals court.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sought the injunction after Amazon terminated Gerald Bryson, a union organiser at its Staten Island warehouse (JFK8), for alleged misconduct during a 2020 protest over COVID-19 safety measures. Bryson, who accused Amazon of retaliating against his union support, became a prominent figure in the campaign that led to JFK8 becoming the first Amazon facility to unionise in 2022.