Statement on October 1 Federal Court Ruling

In late August, unprecedented communications of a concerning and threatening nature led University of Maryland Police Department (UMPD) Chief David Mitchell and President Darryll J. Pines to express concerns for the safety of the campus on October 7, 2024, and enact a threat assessment.

On September 1, the university announced our intent to host only university-sponsored expressive events on October 7, 2024. This decision was made upon the recommendation of UMPD with safety as our primary concern.

On September 17, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Palestine Legal announced a lawsuit on behalf of the Students for Justice in (SJP) Palestine’s UMD chapter against the University of Maryland for not allowing its event to proceed on October 7 as originally requested.

Today, a judge in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted SJP’s motion for a preliminary injunction, requiring the University to reinstate SJP’s reservation for McKeldin Mall on October 7, 2024, subject to a court-imposed bond on SJP.

The University of Maryland recognizes, and will abide by, the court’s decision, and will work with all registered student organizers of events requested for October 7. Event organizers, campus officials and UMPD will implement a plan that allows all events to proceed in accordance with the court’s ruling. Notwithstanding today’s court ruling, the safety concerns that were raised remain a source of ongoing attention and focus for us.

In compliance with the court’s decision, we will now move forward with the events, addressing those concerns and challenges with care and caution, including the implementation of a robust safety plan. This includes enhanced staffing and resources with a strong security presence.

Background

The Court’s ruling states, in part:

• “[S]ubject to certain conditions that the Court will impose, the Court will order UMCP to permit the October 7 event to go forward.”
• “Experience with similar protests over Gaza in universities and colleges around the country suggests that certain conduct not protected by the First Amendment, e.g., incitement to violence, physical threats and harassment to individuals, disruption of classes, occupation of buildings, encampments, and property destruction, may well be accompaniments to the protests.”
• “It simply cannot be said with assurance that personal threats, violence, and property damage as a result of campus protests involving Gaza, given recent experience around the country, will not occur.”
• “Ordinarily, given that a reasonable prospect of violence and destructive content might occur, a bond in some reasonable amount would be appropriate.”
• “The court will set the bond in the amount of $2,500” to be posted by SJP.