article: On May 8, 2018, Speech First, a nationwide membership organization of students, alumni, and others concerned with preserving the protections of the First Amendment, filed this lawsuit, on behalf of members attending the University of Michigan, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiff sued the University of Michigan under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 and 1988. Represented by private counsel, Speech First sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as attorneys’ fees, claiming violations of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The plaintiff alleged that the University of Michigan’s policies and enforcement of those policies chilled the speech and expression of student claimants. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that University’s policies on “harassment” and “bullying” were unconstitutionally overbroad and void for vagueness. Furthermore, the plaintiff alleged that the policies provided no notice to students on what would constitute “harassment” or “bullying,” and enforcement of the policies were implemented arbitrarily. 2018 WL 2123702. This case was assigned to Judge Elizabeth Stafford. On May 11, 2018, Speech First moved for preliminary injunctions against the defendant. The plaintiff sought to prohibit the defendant from: “(1) taking any actions to investigate, threaten, or punish students for violations of the prohibitions on “harassment,” “bullying,” and “bias-related misconduct” set forth in the University’s Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities; and (2) using the Bias Response Team to investigate, threaten, or punish students (including informal punishments such as restorative justice or individual education) for bias incidents. On June 11, 2018, the United States filed a statement of interest in support of the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. In response, the defendant moved for a stay on its obligation to respond to the plaintiff’s complaint. The defendant argued that the University’s answer should be stayed until the court made a decision on the plaintiff’s preliminary injunction. Although the court noted that the defendant’s request served the interest of efficiency, it did not stay the defendant's answer. Instead, on June 19, 2018, the court extended the deadline until twenty-one (21) days from the date the court ruled on the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. The court held a hearing on Speech First's motion for preliminary injunction on July 31, 2018. On August 6, the court denied the plaintiff's motion, holding that the Bias Response Team did not pose a concrete threat to the plaintiffs; that Speech First's constitutional challenge to the University's definitions of "bullying" and "harassment" had become moot after the University changed the definitions; and that there was no threat of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs. The district determined that Speech First was not likely to succeed on the merits of its claims because it lacked standing to assert that claim. The plaintiff appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on August 13, 2018. The Appeals Court found that Speech First had associational standing to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the students of the University. The Appeals Court also found that the claims were not moot, as the University’s voluntary cessation would not preclude them from reverting back to the prior definitions of "bullying" and "harassment." The Court vacated and remanded the District’s Court decision, determining that the District Court was in a better position to assess the facts. 939 F.3d 756 (6th Cir. 2019). The parties agreed to settle the dispute, and each bore their own costs. The University agreed not to reinstate the Bias Response team or the prior definitions of bullying and harassment and to maintain the published definitions on the website as they were at the time of settlement. On October 28, 2019, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case. Judge Linda Parker order the dismissal with prejudice. The case is now closed.
summary: In May 2018, Speech First filed this lawsuit on behalf of members attending the University of Michigan. The plaintiff sued the University of Michigan under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 and 1988, alleging that the University of Michigan’s policies and enforcement of those policies violated the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. After the plaintiff’s initial motion for injunctive relief was denied by the District Court, the plaintiff appealed to the 6th Circuit Court. The Circuit Court vacated the lower court’s decision and remanded the proceedings, but the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claim soon after. The case is now closed