SJP Dallas sues UTD alleging the university violated their constitutional rights, used excessive force, maliciously prosecuted students

On May 19, Students for Justice in Palestine Dallas announced that they, alongside five UTD students and alumni, are suing nineteen members of UTD’s administration and police force for alleged violations of their constitutional rights to free speech, protection from unreasonable searches without a warrant and equal protection of the law.

Elbially Law filed the lawsuit May 15 in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District Of Texas Dallas Division on behalf of SJP Dallas, Nouran Abusaad ‘24, Casey Choi ‘24, Belal Elseisy ‘25, Mousa Najjar ‘24 and history senior Chengyang Zhou. 

The suit alleges that university officials used extreme and disproportionate force against students, including placing peaceful students in a chokehold, placing SJP Dallas under an undue level of surveillance to limit their political expression and repeatedly retaliating against students and alumni in violation of both their First and 14th Amendment rights. 

In a statement to The Retrograde, a spokesperson for UTD declined to comment on the lawsuit “because this is a pending legal matter, we are unable to respond.”

The claims

The 51-page lawsuit specifically alleges that the university violated the First, Fourth and 14th Amendment rights of the plaintiffs. 

It claims that UTD administration coordinated with the UTD Police Department to suppress pro-Palestinian student activism, manifesting in arrests, criminal prosecutions and disciplinary measures taken against pro-Palestinian students and SJP as a whole. 

According to the lawsuit, UTD has been attempting to suppress the expression of pro-Palestine speech, and in doing so, violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs in four key ways: excessive force, malicious prosecution, free speech violations and right to assembly violations.

In the case, plaintiff Zhou claims that, following the spring 2025 commencement ceremony, held on May 15, 2025, UTD police officer Eric Willadson “lunged at him and yanked him by the backpack” and utilized excessive force through “a forceful chokehold,” causing Zhou to be “unable to breathe,” all while he hadn’t shown signs of resistance nor weapon possession.

On May 20, 2025, Magistrate Kevin Harris signed an arrest warrant against Zhou after Detective David Wawak, of UTD PD, submitted probable cause affidavits for a second degree felony assault of a public servant charge and a disrupting meeting or procession misdemeanor charge. The lawsuit says that Willadson alleged “when Zhou played his bugle in open air, at least ten feet away, the sound emanating was an assault on Defendant Willadsen’s ears which caused hearing loss and tinnitus.”

Willadsen then carried out that warrant and arrested Zhou in his apartment on May 30, 2025. Zhou alleges that when he was imprisoned he received disparaging remarks from the officers as he was repeatedly strip searched and placed into solitary confinement for over 13 hours. Once the case reached the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office, it was rejected and Zhou was released from the county jail the same day.

On Sept. 10, 2025, Zhou filed a complaint against the actions of Willadsen on the grounds that placing Zhou in a chokehold violated policy 601 from the Office of the Director of Police of the UT System’s Policy and Procedure Manual. Section IV.F.2 “Use of Force Options or Force Models” of this policy states that “Chokeholds, vascular neck restraints, or similar techniques are prohibited.” The Office of the Director of Police assigned Mike Funke, the Stephen F. Austin University Chief of Police, as the inspector for this complaint. In a letter sent to Zhou Sept. 24, 2025, UTD PD Chief of Police Brent Tourangeau said that “Inspector Funke concluded that there was no evidence or corroborated facts to support any allegations of misconduct or violations of departmental policy by Lt. Willadsen.”

The plaintiffs further claim that the defendants acted under a coordinated plan to deter Abusaad, Choi, Elseisy, Najjar and Zhou from exercising their constitutional rights. This plan consisted of initiating legal and academic disciplinary processes, leading Abusaad, Najjar and Choi to be wrongfully subjected to arrest, prosecution and incarceration following the May 1 encampment. The plaintiffs claim that the work of the defendants further led to Elseisy and Zhou facing unfair punishments for their 28-second interruption of the spring 2025 commencement ceremony. 

UTD administrators have previously changed policy in direct response to SJP to limit their activism on campus, banned the use of chalk on campus and implemented overnight bans on expressive speech, in accordance with state law, during this period. On April 3, 2025, Tricia Losavio, defendant and associate dean of health and wellness initiatives, told members of SJP to stop drawing with pro-Palestine messages in chalk at the plinth because “The policy supersedes your First Amendment.” At the time, political science junior and SJP student organizer Aysha Ahmed said she saw the restriction as just another in the set of procedural hurdles the university threw exclusively at SJP.

“All of these things are just examples of how they plan on repressing us,” Ahmed said. “Once they have reviewed their policy, in almost all these instances they have found we are actually doing nothing wrong and so we have been able to continue with our acts of protest because we are well within our First Amendment rights to protest. But that doesn’t stop the silencing effect their baseless violation claims have in the moment. They may try to silence us, but our voices deserve to be heard in the ways we choose to protest within our rights.”  

Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that the actions punished by UTD and its police officers, especially the May 1 encampment and the ensuing May 15 walkout, fall under what is considered protected expression under the First Amendment. The plaintiffs argue that all actions taken by the defendants to suppress and prevent further speech and actions, including but not limited to issuing suspensions, warnings, denials of degree and suspension of the campus chapter of SJP all constitute violations of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, entitling them to compensatory damages.

Likewise, the plaintiffs allege that their right to assemble and express complaints or disagreement with actions taken by government officials was infringed upon through the actions taken by the defendants. Additionally, they said that their freedom to speak or write about their grievances was also curtailed by UTD’s alleged campus crackdown.

The lawsuit names each defendant individually. Those named include former UTD President Richard Benson, Vice President of Student Affairs Gene Fitch, Vice President of Administration Rafael Martin, Dean of Students Amanda Smith, current UTD President Prabhas Moghe, Losavio, Office of Community Standards and Conduct Director Shaq Massey, Student Union Senior Director Dan Goodwin, Associate Dean for Student Engagement Initiatives Kimberly Winkler; the UTD PD officers mentioned are Willadsen, Tourangeau, Wawak, Adam Perry, David Chang, Somer Clark, Rod Bishop, Karl Zuber, Robert Alvarado and Charles Scott.

According to the lawsuit, all persons listed as defendants were employed by UTD during the time periods relevant to the lawsuit and had some power or influence in how UTD suppressed and targeted pro-Palestinian activism performed by the plaintiffs.

The context

The lawsuit was filed one year after the arrests of Zhou and Elseisy for the 28-second “disruption” the two participated in, alongside other students, which involved walking out of the spring 2025 commencement ceremony while chanting numerous phrases including “we are all SJP.” 

The plaintiffs claim that through the arrests, alongside various other actions taken against the plaintiffs, UTD has engaged in viewpoint discrimination by expressing support to the state of Israel while intentionally suppressing students’ political expression in support of Palestine.

“In a 2023 letter, they [Richard Benson] wrote that they are against a student resolution which was against Israel,” attorney Marwa Elbially said. “This letter was the one which UTD leadership officially took a stance against. This was issued on UTD letterhead by then President Benson expressing on behalf of UTD leadership that he disagreed with the resolution which was passed by the student government.”

According to SJP organizer and UTD Software Engineering junior Sarah Khalid, the organization intentionally chose to file the lawsuit on May 15 as the date simultaneously marks two significant events including the pro-Palestine student walkout at UTD’s commencement ceremony leading to the disciplinary proceedings against SJP, as well as the start of the Nakba, the 78 year long displacement of Palestinians by Israel.

“After our suspension, we made it very clear that we want to continue pushing forward our demands for UTD to cut all ties with genocide and occupation,” Khalid said. “This [lawsuit] is a strategic decision on our part to push forward our demands on a different front because we are targeting a war hungry university that’s eager to be complicit in the genocide of Gaza and the occupation of Palestine.”

How normal is this?

This SJP Dallas lawsuit is not the first instance of legal action against UTD regarding its alleged discrimination to pro-Palestine individuals. On Aug. 5, 2025, assistant professor of art history Ali Asgar Alibhai filed suit against UTD. Alibhai claims his participation in a protected speech act was unlawfully targeted by the university. Alibhai’s lawsuit was followed by an Oct. 20, 2025, case filed by history professors Ben Wright and Rosemary Admiral, both of whom were arrested alongside Alibhai on May 1, 2024. Litigation in both cases is ongoing. 

SJP Dallas’ lawsuit comes shortly after UT Austin student Ammer Qaddumi sued his university for a similar alleged infringement on free speech. Similar suits have been filed at universities across the US including the University of Florida and the University of Michigan. The University of Maryland’s SJP chapter won a settlement of $100,000 against its university for imposing a ban on students’ vigil for Gaza.

What awaits?

Through the lawsuit, the plaintiffs demand that the court acknowledges the violation of their constitutional rights, concede that the actions of the defendants were done in bad faith and purposeful ignorance of the plaintiffs’ rights and that the plaintiffs receive relief and recovery of all damages as the court sees fit. 

On a broader scale, SJP hopes to prevent the setting of a precedent that normalizes the violation of peoples’ constitutional rights, political speech suppression and brutalization of students.

“Obviously we want SJP to get reinstated but there has to be accountability so that this doesn’t continue to happen in the future,” Elbially said. “We can’t have students choked out on campus and [have] nothing happen to the officer. He [Willadsen] violated their policies really clearly.”

Khalid said that UTD has already shown the lengths they will travel to suppress the pro-Palestinian student movement and abuse students to protect profits that are tied to the genocide in Palestine. 

“No amount of repression will stop the students from advocating for Palestine,” Khalid said. “We will not stop until UTD cuts every single tie with the Zionist entity and its genocidal facilitators.”

Editor’s Note: The Retrograde is one of the plaintiffs in an ongoing lawsuit against UTD for its unconstitutional implementation of SB 2972.

This is a breaking news story. The Retrograde will provide more details as new information emerges.