Lawsuit Against MIT For Allowing ‘Free Palestine’ slogans and Protests Against Israel’s Genocide Must be Dismissed

Palestine Legal’s friend of the court brief in support of MIT and MIT Professor Michel DeGraff in lawsuit filed by Israel lobby group

CONTACT: Palestine Legal Media, media@palestinelegal.org

Thursday, December 17th, 2025 — Palestine Legal today announced the filing of a “friend of the court” brief in support of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and MIT Professor Michel DeGraff in a lawsuit claiming that MIT violated civil rights laws by not doing enough to stop speech critical of Israel on campus.

The lawsuit against MIT and Professor Michel DeGraff, Sussman v MIT, was filed by the notorious Israel lobby group, the Brandeis Center, in June 2025. The Brandeis Center is a leading force behind the ongoing effort to misuse Title VI to suppress speech critical of Israel on college campuses, as detailed in a new report by the American Association of University Professors and Middle Eastern Studies Association. The Center is behind dozens of such bogus Title VI complaints, and has sued Berkeley, Stanford, and Harvard.

Palestine Legal’s brief argues that many of the alleged incidents in the lawsuit, Sussman v MIT, are political speech on a matter of public concern that do not target any student on the basis of a protected identity – a requirement for Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These incidents include an MIT scientist posting a picture of themselves wearing a kuffiyeh (traditional Palestinian scarf), a student graduation speech referencing Israel’s genocide, and students chanting common pro-Palestinian slogans (“Free, free Palestine,” “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “Globalize the Intifada”).

“The speech at issue targets a state over its actions and is clearly protected under the First Amendment,” said Sabiya Ahamed, staff attorney at Palestine Legal. “Particularly as we are seeing suppression of speech critical of our government nationwide, it is more important than ever that the integrity of that right be reaffirmed.”

Palestine Legal’s brief urges the court to grant MIT’s motion to dismiss the case and to find that the alleged actions are protected political speech on issues of public concern—Israel’s genocide and Palestinians’ struggle for freedom. The brief also argues that Title VI does not and cannot require universities to punish and suppress protected political speech, including criticism of Israel, merely because some members of a group feel offended by that speech.

The First Circuit Court’s recent decision in another case alleging MIT violated Title VI provides further support for the arguments in Palestine Legal’s brief. The court found that in this case, which was filed in the same circuit, the plaintiffs failed to show that pro-Palestinian advocacy constituted racial harassment under Title VI. Notably, the court stated that organizing in groups on campus and taking part in disruptive activity “did not render… speech antisemitic, much less unprotected.” The court also stated that “requiring MIT to restrict students' expression merely because those students opposed Israel and favored the Palestinian cause would infringe upon MIT's freedom to encourage, rather than suppress, a vigorous exchange of ideas.” The precedent could not be more clear: “[u]sing Title VI to compel adherence to a preferred political viewpoint” implicates students’ First Amendment freedoms.

Michel DeGraff is being represented by Mark Kleiman and Jonathan Wallace.

Read our full amicus brief here.