Ellutzi, et al. v. Regents of the University of California, et al.

Summary

On September 9, 2024, UC Santa Cruz (UCSC) was sued by students Hannah (Elio) Ellutzi and Laaila Irshad, and tenured faculty member Christine Hong. The complaint, filed by the ACLU of Northern California on behalf of the plaintiffs, alleged that UCSC violated the First Amendment and procedural protections under university policy and state law by issuing campus bans without individualized hearings. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent future bans and to affirm their rights to free speech and assembly.

Beginning on May 1, 2024, the plaintiffs and other students held an encampment on campus to express solidarity with Gazans affected by Israeli military actions during the Israel-Hamas conflict. UCSC communications noted that the demonstration increasingly disrupted campus operations, blocked access to facilities, and interfered with classes and emergency services. Negotiations between student representatives and UCSC administrators continued through May 11 while the encampment remained active. Law enforcement removed the encampment on May 31, 2024. Following the removal, UCSC issued campus bans affecting more than 100 students, including some who were not arrested or charged, without prior notice or opportunity to contest the bans. The bans prevented students from attending classes, accessing campus buildings, maintaining employment, or using health and counseling services. The complaint also alleged that personal digital devices of some students were seized to deter future protected speech.

On November 19, 2024, the Santa Cruz County Superior Court considered a motion for a preliminary injunction to immediately restrict UCSC from issuing campus bans without due process. The court denied the motion, citing factual disputes that prevented a ruling at that stage.

On May 2, 2025, the court issued rulings on certain claims in the lawsuit, finding that students and faculty could not be subjected to blanket campus bans and that the seizure of digital devices violated procedural protections. These rulings resolved specific constitutional and procedural questions, but other aspects of the case, including final remedies, damages, and potential additional claims, remain unresolved. As of March 2026, the lawsuit is still ongoing.