Advanced

Dames v. Roberts (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

April 2024
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Public college or university)
Chapel Hill, NC

Identity of Speakers

  • Laila Dames
    Unaffiliated
    Other

    Undergraduate student at Duke University; Plaintiff

  • Emily Rogers
    Unaffiliated
    Other

    Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Duke University; Plaintiff

  • Kathryn Newman
    Unaffiliated
    Other

    Student at Meredith College and member of Meredith College Students for Justice in Palestine; Plaintiff

  • Mathangi Mohanarajah
    Student
    Other

    Undergraduate at UNC Chapel Hill; Plaintiff

  • Anshu Shah
    Student
    Other

    Undergraduate at UNC Chapel Hill; Plaintiff

Resources

Additional Information

  • Incident Nature:
    Rally or protest
    Organized outside group action
    Lawsuit
  • Incident Political Orientation:
    Not Clear
  • Incident Responses:
    University investigation issuing in sanctions
    Student sanctioned
    Campus police
    Other Law Enforcement
    Litigation
    Title IX or other federal statute
  • Incident Status:
    In litigation Federal District Court
  • Was Speech Code incident

Summary

April 30, 2024, a group of students and community members established a pro-Palestinian encampment on the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill campus. University administrators ordered law enforcement to clear the encampment, and authorities arrested protesters. Several individuals were then banned indefinitely from campus without a hearing.

On March 3, 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Emancipate NC, and Muslim Advocates filed a lawsuit on behalf of the protesters, alleging that UNC’s actions violated the First Amendment right to free speech, the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, and Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful arrest and excessive force. The first amended complaint detailed that bans were issued “without any formal process or prior hearing” and targeted individuals for participating in nonviolent protest.

In February 2026, a federal judge partially granted relief to the plaintiffs. The court ordered UNC to list all campus bans imposed on protesters and lifted the indefinite bans, allowing the individuals to return to campus while the lawsuit proceeded. The judge concluded that the bans likely violated constitutional protections by imposing viewpoint discrimination and prior restraint on protected speech.

The ruling emphasized that public universities are subject to First Amendment scrutiny. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs described the decision as a reminder that “speech in opposition to the genocide in Gaza is entitled to the full protections of the law, and should never have been silenced.” UNC stated it remained committed to fostering free speech and intellectual engagement while ensuring compliance with campus policies. The university had previously disciplined students for related protest activities, including citing individuals for trespass and restricting access to certain campus areas, and it maintained security measures around prominent locations such as the campus quad and the Pit to monitor demonstrations and enforce its policies.

The case continues as plaintiffs pursue claims related to alleged excessive force during arrests and the broader pattern of indefinite campus bans. Court filings indicate that UNC officials will be required to provide detailed explanations for each ban, including the specific conduct that led to enforcement, while the constitutional challenge proceeds through litigation.