Federal Court Dismisses All Claims Against American Muslims for Palestine in Nevada Lawsuit
Judge Rules in Favor of AMP, Citing Lack of Jurisdiction and First Amendment Protections
A federal district court in Nevada dismissed all claims against American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) on May 5, 2025, marking a decisive legal victory for the advocacy organization. The court’s ruling ends a high-profile lawsuit that accused AMP of violating the Anti-Terrorism Act and engaging in conduct allegedly linked to international terrorism. The judge found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient facts to support the claims and further determined that AMP’s advocacy and social media activity are protected under the First Amendment.
Legal Reasoning: Insufficient Claims and Free Speech Protections
The lawsuit, which relied heavily on allegations from other ongoing cases against AMP, was dismissed after the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the organization. The judge ruled that a handful of social media posts did not establish the necessary legal grounds for the case to proceed. Specifically, the court found that the plaintiff could not demonstrate any personal injury resulting from an act of international terrorism, nor that AMP had provided material assistance to such acts.
In the written opinion, the judge emphasized that AMP’s advocacy, including public statements and social media activity, constitutes protected free speech. The court noted, “AMP’s social media and advocacy statements are protected free speech under the First Amendment and the claims against AMP fail to allege anything more.” The judge further stated that the plaintiff failed to plead any “extreme or outrageous conduct” or actual injury resulting from AMP’s actions.
Judicial Critique of Plaintiff’s Arguments
The court also criticized the structure and substance of the plaintiff’s complaint, noting that it included 51 pages of background material before presenting a brief five-page statement of facts. The judge described much of the plaintiff’s filing, including references to congressional subpoenas and activities at campuses unrelated to the plaintiff, as irrelevant to the case at hand. The court previously struck down an attempt by the plaintiff to serve AMP’s founder improperly, signaling a consistent approach to procedural rigor throughout the litigation.
Voices from the Case: Legal and Community Reactions
Christina A. Jump, Civil Litigation Department Head and lead counsel for AMP, welcomed the decision, stating:
“I welcome the thorough analysis by the Court-the reasoning and legal precedents here apply in many other courts across the country as well. AMP has every right to lawful advocacy protected by the First Amendment. As the Court recognized, the plaintiff may not like what AMP has to say, but that doesn’t violate any laws. Today is a win for free speech and a huge win for our clients, and we congratulate them on seeing this through.”
Samira Elhosary, Civil Litigation Staff Attorney and co-counsel for AMP, echoed this sentiment:
“Our client AMP has long endured false allegations and claims about the work they do. This decision is evidence of the complete lack of facts behind the inflammatory rhetoric used against AMP in this lawsuit and others. We will continue our hard work for AMP fighting against these baseless claims-and we celebrate this key win!”
Osama Abuirshaid, Executive Director of AMP, added:
“I am relieved to see the judge apply the law and the system work the way it should. Today is an important victory and sends a clear message.”
Context: Broader Implications for Advocacy Groups
The dismissal of this lawsuit holds significance beyond AMP, as it reinforces the principle that advocacy and public statements-even on contentious issues-are protected by the First Amendment. The court’s ruling may serve as a precedent for similar cases nationwide, particularly those involving allegations based on advocacy or social media activity rather than concrete evidence of wrongdoing.
Legal experts note that this decision underscores the high bar plaintiffs must meet to pursue claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act and similar statutes. The ruling also highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding free speech, especially when advocacy groups face attempts to curtail their activities through litigation.
Next Steps and Potential Developments
While the plaintiff retains the right to refile some claims, the judge’s order clarifies that any future complaint must be concise, relevant, and supported by specific facts. The court’s critique of the plaintiff’s previous filings suggests that further attempts to revive the case will face significant hurdles.
AMP and its legal team have indicated their intention to seek recovery of legal fees associated with what they describe as wrongful attempts to circumvent procedural requirements. The organization views the dismissal as a legal and moral victory, affirming its right to continue advocacy work without fear of unfounded legal reprisals.
The Nevada federal court’s dismissal of all claims against American Muslims for Palestine marks a watershed moment for advocacy groups defending their right to free speech. The ruling vindicates AMP and sets a clear standard for future cases involving advocacy organizations and First Amendment protections. As legal observers await further action from the plaintiff, the decision is a robust affirmation of constitutional rights and procedural fairness in the American legal system.