A federal judge heard arguments Wednesday about whether to dismiss a lawsuit that eight University of Michigan students and alumni brought against the school after it fired them.
The former workers are students and alumni who participated in protests demanding the university divest from Israel. U of M fired the workers several months after the incidents cited in their termination letters.
The judge asked lawyers to focus their arguments on technical issues brought up in the university’s motion to dismiss, but a few issues central to the lawsuit shined through at times. Lawyers for the university argued that the fired workers broke the school’s code of conduct when protesting in fall 2023 and spring 2024.
The plaintiffs include a woman who had already graduated and was working for the university full-time when she was fired. All eight plaintiffs are barred from working at the university ever again.
Eaman Ali is another plaintiff in the case. She graduated in May 2025 and had planned to keep her campus job over the summer until she found a full-time job. She attended the hearing on Wednesday, and said the university didn’t have much of a case.
“I felt like a lot of these technical arguments were trying to obscure the reality of the situation, and of why this case was even brought forward,” Ali said.
Ali participated in a protest at the University of Michigan Museum of Art (UMMA) in May 2024. She said her and the other plaintiffs’ conduct was peaceful.
Brian Schwartz represented the university at the hearing. During arguments, he said there was “ample evidence” of the plaintiffs’ “violent conduct” at demonstrations at the Ruthven Administration Building in November 2023 and the protest at UMMA in 2024.
John Philo is the lead attorney for the case and executive director at the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice. He said that’s not the case.
“We are destroying the meaning of that word by using it in this context,” Philo said after the hearing. “There were not broken windows. There were not punches.”
The university also argued that there was no evidence the plaintiffs were still experiencing harm from the firings, so they didn’t have a case.
“Because Plaintiffs’ claims related to future employment are contingent on future harm that may not occur, these claims should be dismissed,” the university argued in its motion to dismiss.
Termination letters included in the university’s motion to dismiss said “your record will reflect that you violated the Violence in the University Community [policy].” It’s unclear what that means.
Philo said in court that argument amounted to a “head in the sand” approach.
“If it doesn't matter, then the university wouldn't put it in the records. They're putting it in there for a reason,” he said after the hearing. “They're barring them for a reason, and it's to have a continuing harm against these students.”
A U of M spokesperson said this week it does not comment on personnel matters or current litigation.
It’s now up to Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III to decide if the lawsuit will proceed. At the hearing’s conclusion, he said he has “an open mind” and would make a decision “pretty soon.”
Philo said the case has ramifications for future students.
“Everyone needs to understand that if we're going to use [the phrase] ‘violence’ in this context, then it has no meaning,” he said. “And what it means is you can punish people for their speech anytime, anywhere.”
Editor’s note: The University of Michigan owns Michigan Public’s broadcast license.
