Defending Dissent: How Activists Are Beating Back “Lawfare” Attacks on the Palestine Movement

From campus crackdowns to courtroom intimidation, recent legal victories mark a turning point for free speech and protest rights in the U.S.

Two Years of Retaliation and Resilience

Palestinian rights advocates across the United States have faced an unprecedented wave of lawsuits, disciplinary actions, and political backlash. Students have been silenced, nonprofits smeared, and protestors dragged into court, all under the guise of “combating antisemitism” or “restoring order.”

But 2025 has also brought a series of powerful legal wins for those who refused to back down. In case after case, judges have affirmed what activists already knew: speaking out for Palestinian freedom is not a crime, it’s our right to protest.

The following cases show how the courts have pushed back against “lawfare,” the strategic use of lawsuits to punish dissent, and reaffirmed the core protections of free speech, assembly, and advocacy in the face of political repression.

SLAPP Dismissed: Manhart v. WESPAC Foundation et al.

Federal court sanctions baseless “lawfare” suit targeting Gaza solidarity protest.

Following the April 2024 “A15 Action,” a nationwide protest blocking traffic to demand an end to U.S. support for Israel’s war on Gaza, a Chicago commuter filed a class action lawsuit against multiple Palestine solidarity groups, including Jewish Voice for Peace, WESPAC Foundation, and National Students for Justice in Palestine.

The plaintiff alleged “false imprisonment,” “negligence,” and “civil conspiracy,” claiming he was trapped in traffic and suffered emotional distress. But the court threw out every claim, finding no plausible legal basis and issuing Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiff for filing a frivolous and harassing suit.

“The law of false imprisonment does not extend to those who are merely delayed in traffic,” the judge wrote. “Such allegations may describe inconvenience, but not confinement.”

Defense attorney Sheila Bedi called the ruling “a reminder that the federal courts are not completely lost for those of us who want to defend the right to dissent.”

This case underscores the growing judicial recognition that SLAPP-style lawsuits targeting protest movements are abuses of the legal system, and that those bringing them can face consequences.

Protecting Humanitarian Work: Lavi et al. v. UNRWA USA

Court rejects baseless terrorism claims against a U.S. aid organization.

In 2023, a group of Israeli and U.S. plaintiffs sued UNRWA USA, the U.S.-based nonprofit supporting the UN’s refugee relief agency for Palestinians, alleging that its humanitarian aid amounted to “material support for terrorism.”

The court firmly rejected these claims, citing the Twitter v. Taamneh standard that requires a direct, culpable nexus between the defendant’s actions and a specific terrorist act. Donations to a humanitarian agency do not meet that threshold. “It would be difficult to accept that UNRWA USA was on notice of UNRWA’s intertwinement with Hamas while donor states such as the United States and Germany were not,” the court wrote.

UNRWA USA Executive Director Mara Kronenfeld called the lawsuit “a politically motivated attempt to intimidate us out of doing our essential humanitarian work.”

The dismissal affirms that humanitarian aid cannot be criminalized. Smearing aid groups with terrorism accusations is a losing strategy.

Anti-SLAPP in Action: Gerwaski v. AMP and SJP UNLV

Nevada court rejects emotional-distress claims and upholds protest as protected speech.

At the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a student sued campus organizers with Students for Justice in Palestine and American Muslims for Palestine, claiming that their protests and online posts after October 7 caused him emotional harm.

Invoking Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute, the court dismissed the case, holding that the students’ speech, even if provocative or controversial, was constitutionally protected.

“Although Gerwaski may not like these messages, they do not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous behavior,” the court wrote. “They are protected expressions on matters of public concern.”

The decision protects not just SJP UNLV, but any student or community member engaged in nonviolent political advocacy, reaffirming that the First Amendment does not bend to discomfort.

Another Lawfare Case Falls Apart: Parizer v. AMP

Court dismisses terrorism accusations against Palestine advocacy groups.

In Virginia, several plaintiffs attempted to hold AMP, NSJP, and WESPAC liable for the October 7 attack, claiming their organizing and messaging aided Hamas. The court was clear: there was no evidence linking any of the groups’ activities to terrorism, nor any “definable nexus” between their advocacy and violent acts. “What happened to Plaintiffs in the October 7 attacks was horrific,” the court wrote. “Yet that is not the question before the Court.”

The dismissal sends a strong message: advocacy for Palestinian rights is not terrorism. Organizing, education, and protest remain protected civil-society activities under U.S. law.

Victory on Campus: UMD Students for Justice in Palestine v. University of Maryland

A $100,000 settlement and a major win for student free speech.

In October 2024, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at the University of Maryland planned an interfaith vigil to mourn lives lost in Gaza. Despite prior approval, university administrators abruptly revoked their permit and banned all student-led events on October 7, citing “safety concerns” and backlash from outside groups.

SJP sued, represented by Council on American-Islamic Relations and Palestine Legal, arguing that the cancellation violated their First Amendment rights. The court agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction allowing the vigil to proceed and finding the university’s action was “neither viewpoint- nor content-neutral.” As the judge wrote, “Speech cannot be punished or banned simply because it might offend a hostile mob.”

By August 2025, the university settled for $100,000, recognizing that it had violated student speech rights. SJP announced that every dollar of the settlement would go toward organizing for collective liberation.

“This legal victory reaffirms our protected rights to protest and speak out against the U.S.-Israeli genocide of Palestinians — and we will keep exercising those rights,” said Daniela Colombi of UMD SJP.

This case now stands as one of the strongest precedents for protecting campus-based Palestine organizing in the wake of rising administrative censorship.

Divided Decisions: CodePink and the Boundaries of Protest

One win, one setback in cases targeting pro-Palestine demonstrators.

Two related lawsuits brought CodePink and the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) into the legal crosshairs.

In Ronen Helmann v. CodePink and PYM, the court dismissed all claims against PYM, finding that its online protest calls were protected political speech, not “true threats” under the FACE Act. However, claims against CodePink survived preliminary dismissal, meaning litigation will continue.

In Sumrall v. Ali, the court issued an injunction against individual activist Janine Ali after a disputed protest encounter in D.C., though she had already been acquitted in criminal court, a reminder of the uneven judicial landscape activists still face.

While mixed, these cases illustrate that even amid backlash, courts continue to differentiate between protest and violence, and that political speech, even when angry, emotional, or disruptive, retains strong constitutional protection.

Turning “Lawfare” Into Lessons

Across all these cases, a pattern emerges: pro-Israel litigants and institutions are increasingly turning to the courts to silence speech they cannot defeat in the public sphere.

Yet in case after case, judges are drawing the line. They are rejecting efforts to criminalize protest, sanctioning those who misuse the courts, and reaffirming the principle that advocacy for Palestinian rights, like the climate and racial justice movements before it, is an essential expression of democracy.

The legal attacks are meant to drain movements of time, energy, and hope, but as these rulings show, truth and justice still carry weight in the courtroom — and the movement for Palestine is not backing down. These legal wins don’t just vindicate individual defendants. These wins protect the broader movement for justice. Each victory makes it harder for future bad-faith lawsuits to succeed and sends a clear message: Dissent is not discrimination. Advocacy is not terrorism. Protest is not a crime.