Christensen v. Carter, et al.

On May 22, 2025, Guy Christensen, an undergraduate student at The Ohio State University and a social media influencer with millions of followers, posted two videos on his personal TikTok account commenting on the Israel Palestine conflict after he had already left campus for the summer. In the first video, he initially condemned the killing of two employees of the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C. Later the same day, he posted a second video withdrawing that condemnation, stating that he did not condemn the killings and criticizing what he described as unequal attention to violence against Palestinians in Gaza. In that video, he used terms such as resistance and escalation when discussing Israel’s military actions and U.S. political support for Israel, and he criticized U.S. Representative Ritchie Torres and other public officials for their positions on the conflict. The videos were later removed from his account.

On May 25, 2025, Ohio State issued Christensen an interim suspension and a no trespass order, stating that his continued enrollment and presence on campus posed a risk of substantial harm. A conduct meeting was scheduled for June 5. On May 30, 2025, before that meeting occurred, the university notified Christensen that he was being involuntarily disenrolled under a separate provision of the Code of Student Conduct, citing safety concerns related to reactions to his social media posts and communications from members of the university community expressing fear for their personal safety. The previously scheduled conduct process was canceled, and Christensen was disenrolled without a disciplinary hearing.

On September 17, 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio filed a lawsuit on Christensen’s behalf in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Ohio State University administrators. The complaint alleged that the university violated Christensen’s First Amendment rights by punishing him for protected political speech and violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by disenrolling him without notice and an opportunity to be heard. The lawsuit sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including removal of references to his disenrollment from his academic record. On September 19, Christensen filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting that the court order the university to expunge the disenrollment from his transcript while the case proceeded. Ohio State filed its response in October, and the parties conducted limited discovery.

On January 12, 2026, the court heard and granted Christensen’s motion for a preliminary injunction. On January 14, 2026, U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus Jr. issued a written order granting the motion, ruling that Christensen had shown a strong likelihood of success on his First Amendment and due process claims. The court found that Christensen’s videos constituted political speech and did not meet the legal standard for unprotected incitement, and that Ohio State likely failed to provide constitutionally required process before disenrolling him.

In his order, Judge Sargus directed Ohio State to remove references to Christensen’s involuntary disenrollment from his academic transcript and records while the case continues. The lawsuit remained pending following the ruling, with the preliminary injunction addressing the status of Christensen’s academic record during the litigation.