Fourth-year Manuel Rivera filed a civil rights complaint against the University, Interim Dean of Students in the University Michael Hayes, and two unnamed University of Chicago Police Department (UCPD) officers on January 14, according to court documents reviewed by the Maroon. The complaint alleges that the University’s decision to remove Rivera from on-campus housing and place him on an involuntary leave of absence was a violation of the First Amendment and of Illinois and Chicago housing law.
This is the first lawsuit and second civil rights complaint filed against the University in relation to pro-Palestine activism in the past year. The first complaint, filed by Palestine Legal in August on behalf of UChicago United for Palestine (UCUP), alleged that the University has engaged in “different treatment of Palestinian students and their allies” and “has reinforced [a] hostile anti-Palestinian environment” on campus.
Sheryl Weikal, the attorney representing Rivera, previously filed suit against Illinois State University (ISU) in August on behalf of seven students who received interim suspensions and no-trespass orders from ISU following their participation in a pro-Palestine protest. She declined to comment on the record about Rivera’s case or any of its specifics, citing the pending nature of litigation.
“Although Plaintiff was evicted on October 21, 2024, Defendants falsified their own records to indicate Plaintiff was given until December 9, 2024 to vacate,” the complaint alleges.
The University declined to comment on the complaint or any of its allegations, citing the pending nature of litigation.
Rivera has accused the University, Hayes, and the two unidentified UCPD officers of one count of “Unlawful First Amendment Retaliation” and one count of “Unlawful Eviction in Tort.”
He has also accused the University and Hayes of one count of “Violations of Chicago Municipal Code 5-12-160,” which regulates landlord interference with tenants’ access to dwellings. He has accused the two UCPD officers of one count of “Violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983,” under which he can sue the officers for participating in the deprivation of his civil rights by carrying out his removal from housing.
Rivera has requested “not less than $50,000 per Plaintiff” for the first three counts, in addition to “costs, attorney fees, and whatever additional relief this Court deems appropriate.” The fourth count requests “not less than $10,000,” plus costs, fees, and any other additional relief deemed appropriate.
Rivera’s complaint states that “on or about October 11, 2024… he observed a group of students peacefully protesting against the ongoing genocide of Palestinians in Israeli-Occupied Gaza…. Plaintiff participated in the protest as it was peaceful and occurring in a public place.”
On October 11, UCUP hosted a rally in recognition of the one-year anniversary of the Israel-Hamas War. The rally began on the main quad, after which demonstrators locked Cobb Gate and vandalized University property.
UCPD detained an unknown protester, sparking physical confrontations between police and protesters. Officers used pepper spray and batons on the crowd, while protesters physically engaged with police in an effort to prevent them from making arrests.
Photographs captured by the Maroon during the protest show Rivera kicking a Chicago Police Department (CPD) officer in the back of the leg.
Rivera was charged with the battery of a CPD officer in connection with his alleged actions during the protest. A Grand Jury has since indicted Rivera on one count of aggravated battery of a peace officer under Illinois state law, according to court documents reviewed by the Maroon.
According to the complaint, the University’s actions constitute unlawful retaliation under the First Amendment. The complaint states that “Plaintiff peacefully and silently engaged in a protest in a public forum, which is First Amendment protected activity” and that any punishments imposed on Rivera were “imposed solely because the Plaintiff was protesting against Israel.”
The complaint also alleges that the University’s actions constitute a violation of Illinois housing law and the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (CRLTO). Under CRLTO, “it is unlawful for any landlord or any person acting at his direction knowingly to oust or dispossess or threaten or attempt to oust or dispossess any tenant from a dwelling unit without authority of law.”
“University deans instructed Plaintiff that he was required to vacate his dormitory immediately as he was being placed on involuntary leave due to his participation in the protest of October 11, 2024,” the complaint reads. According to the complaint, deans told Rivera that he should leave campus “voluntar[ily],” but that UCPD officers would arrest him if he did not comply.
“As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions,” the complaint reads, “Plaintiff was made homeless,” adding that Rivera has since “suffered from hunger and homelessness for months.”
CRLTO provides several exemptions from the ordinance, including for “student housing accommodations wherein a housing agreement or housing contract is entered into between the student and an institution of higher learning” unless “the rental agreement thereof is created to avoid the application of this chapter.”
According to UChicago’s 2024–25 student housing contract, the contract “shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois, without regard to its choice of law principles, and the parties agree to personal jurisdiction and venue in the state and federal courts located in Cook County, Illinois, in any suit or proceeding arising out of the subject matter of this Contract.”
Jeff Leslie, clinical professor of law and the Paul J. Tierney Director of the Housing Initiative Transactional Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School, told the Maroon it is “pretty clear” that the University’s dorms are exempt from CRLTO. According to Leslie, if the University’s dorms are deemed exempt from CRLTO, the University will likely not be liable for the complaint’s third count of violations of Chicago Municipal Code.
Zachary Leiter contributed reporting.
Student / Jan 28, 2025 at 11:39 am
You’ve been really consistent keeping the terms ” alleged” whenever referring to the university’s actions, but you’ve repeatedly failed to use that language when talking about the charges against the student. As early as when the maroon first released the photos, you’ve repeatedly failed to use that language when referring to a court case which has not yet been settled. Why can you do that courtesy to the school but not to a classmate?
Retired Civil Rights Activist / Jan 22, 2025 at 7:20 pm
Filing a lawsuit against the police while a felony charge for aggravated battery of a police officer where the State’s Attorney’s Office has a slam-dunk case against you in a bad idea in follow-up of a really bad idea.
The defendants can request discovery and question him about whether his actions were as peaceful as he claims and take his deposition which can be used against him in the criminal proceeding since he can’t claim the 5th Amendment on any question that is deemed relevant to his claim.
I remember a time when people protested with full knowledge that they would be arrested and were willing to accept the consequences of their actions.
Sadly, that time has passed.
In solidarity with Manuel Rivera / Jan 22, 2025 at 10:44 pm
Two things are clear. First, for the protestor to file a lawsuit is a nonviolent course of action, and you’re quite sad about it. Second, for an institution of higher education to maintain financial ties to the revenge-based ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians is something you’re not only not sad about, you don’t even deem it worth remarking on. If I might I ask: how the actual fuck does sadness work for you? However it works, I am happy for time passing if it means more Manuel Riveras and fewer YOU’S.
Retired Civil Rights Activist / Jan 23, 2025 at 11:41 am
Rivera is/was a student of the University and subject to a code of conduct both as a student and as a person entering into a contract with housing.
His actions occurred partly on the private property of the University for which he would be subject to disciplinary procedures and partly on a public street.
The protest was violent and was intended to intentionally interfere with the rights’ of other students.
He committed a felony in the course of the protest not by sitting down in the middle of the street with arms locked with other protestors but by kicking a CPD officer attempting to enforce the law.
The University removed him from campus because he presented an immediate danger to other students and faculty.
His case won’t survive summary judgment and will probably result in Rule 137 sanctions against him and his attorney.
My final comment is a cliche commonly used by folks and doesn’t mean we are sad.
Yes / Jan 25, 2025 at 2:00 pm
I understand that this is your sole concern about said protest — not the immediate danger posed by this university and this country to the tens of thousands of Palestinian women and children slaughtered over the past year. Historians will look back and say: first of all, were student conduct codes being obeyed? What I think is most rich is how you seek to position yourself as the wise older activist from back when people had their priorities straight, yet your actual take here betrays the most uncritical, inhumane, anti-dissent, pro-authority set of priorities imaginable. I mean you’re literally talking about conduct codes in a genocide. It’s honestly really shameful. Really indicative of how people in this country have the nerve to claim the moral high ground while valuing the life of a Palestinian at 0¢.
Zack Moydic / Jan 22, 2025 at 5:59 pm
Another vacillating, cowardly stream of moral abdication from the Maroon. I appreciate the attempt to try and at least paint the anti-genocide protestor and the University funding said genocide as equally culpable in this situation, but clearly the Maroon couldn’t help themselves from providing a little pro bono work for the University. The legal speculation was the perfect combination of crude and sweet-sounding to the ears of a decrepit braindead administrator, so full marks there. Maybe you’d get farther with the normal, sensible crowd if you bothered to mention that when the cops “detained a protestor”, they singled out one person among dozens to drive up next to and tackle to the ground before trying to drag them into a cop car before everyone else can react. Not quite the portrait of heroic white knights standing against the horde of terrorist supporters that the University would have you believe right? Maybe if you acknowledged those facts, you’d have to accept that it’s perfectly normal for a person with a beating heart and a spine that hasn’t been completely liquified by unquestioningly choking on the boots of cops and administrators to stand up in such a moment and move to defend a fellow believer in what is right. Shame on this shitty publication, and I’m glad the rest of the UChicago community is realizing what a bunch of losers you are. Thanks for including a little blurb every other article about how much it gets to you that people don’t want to give quotes to your hollow excuse for a newspaper.
Quiet. / Jan 23, 2025 at 2:52 pm
Spare us the self-righteous diatribe. Journalism isn’t about pandering to your worldview. Conflating recklessness with heroism doesn’t make your argument stronger—it just makes it louder.