SANTA CRUZ >> Citing hardships from a temporary end-of-term campus ban, a sampling of the more than 100 students and faculty involved in a month-long Palestine solidarity encampment have filed suit against UC Santa Cruz this week.

The ACLU Foundation of Northern California, the Center for Protest Law & Litigation and civil rights attorney Thomas Seabaugh are seeking court backing to prevent UCSC from unconstitutionally banning students, faculty or staff during protests, according to an ACLU release.The complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, case 24CV02532, names UCSC professor of Critical Race and Ethnic Studies and Literature Christine Hong and students Hannah “Elio” Ellutzi and Laaila Irshad as plaintiffs in the case.

On the night of May 30, as the end of the school term neared, more than 100 riot gear-clad officers converged on the Palestine Solidarity Encampment in a parking lot adjacent to the Barn Theater at the main entrance to UC Santa Cruz. The encampment protest, led by members of the Students for Justice in Palestine at UCSC, began May 1, initially sited at Quarry Plaza. As protesters moved to block access to the campus’ two entrances, the university turned to several days of remote instruction.

Students, faculty and community members first gathered to show support for the Palestinian people and end to the latest war between Israel and Hamas in November.

The university’s crime log listed 119 arrests on suspicion of crimes ranging from being drunk in public and refusing to disperse to remaining at the scene of a riot and resisting arrest. Two people also faced arrest on suspicion of battery. The Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office has not yet criminally charged individuals in the case, though the statute of limitations extends out a year, according to Chief Deputy District Attorney Tara George.

Officers handed out fliers or verbally issued orders to vacate, citing state criminal law permitting school officials to “withdraw consent” to remain on campus for up to two weeks. Such an order is typically accompanied by a hearing unless the individual poses a substantial threat of significant injury to persons or property, the attorneys asserted. No such hearing took place, they said.

Seabaugh referred to university police reliance on the related penal code as a “tool of censorship.”

“Our clients did not engage in conduct that posed a threat of significant injury to anyone or anything,” Seabaugh is quoted in the release. “Banning them on the spot was not just heavy-handed, it was unconstitutional and a violation of basic democratic rights and academic freedoms. We’re suing to ensure that in the coming school year, UCSC officials comply with the law and respect the constitutional limits on their power to ban students and faculty from campus.”

In a letter to university chancellors dated Aug. 19, University of California President Michael Drake wrote a policy directive to “work to facilitate free expression in a safe manner” and in a way that would not disrupt university functions, impede orderly operations or place community members in reasonable fear for their personal safety or infringe on their civil rights. His letter directed UC campuses to post a compilation of policies that commonly apply to protests and demonstrations, including a ban on campus camping, building unauthorized structures, blocking others’ ingress or egress, wearing a mask to hide their identity and refusing to identify themselves to university officials.

Reached Tuesday morning for comment, university spokesperson Scott Hernandez-Jason declined to respond to provided detailed questions, saying UCSC had not yet been served with the lawsuit.

“UC Santa Cruz is unwavering in its commitment to upholding the rights of free expression and speech, while also preserving the right to access to education, residences, and campus facilities free from obstruction,” Hernandez-Jason wrote in an email. “We remain confident that decisions made in the spring were necessary and critical to preserve safety, access, and operations of the campus.”

A first court hearing in the case is scheduled for Jan. 7.