Case 8:24-cv-00753-DLB Document 1 Filed 03/13/24 Page 1 of 20
Case 8:24-cv-00753-DLB Document 1 Filed 03/13/24 Page 1 of 20
2
Case 8:24-cv-00753-DLB Document 1 Filed 03/13/24 Page 3 of 20
Introduction
While Defendants have already admitted that “no single or specific incident led to this
decision,” the University of Maryland has punished every single member and new member of
certain categories of fraternities and sororities. This punishment, which is now in its thirteenth day
with no end in sight, has denied college students their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights in
a significant manner. To have their rights restored, the University is requiring that students submit
to a mandatory interrogation by attorneys retained by the University under threat of discipline for
refusal to comply.
Plaintiffs bring this action to put a stop to such misconduct and to enforce and vindicate
their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Maryland’s directive, both on its face and as applied,
unlawfully restricts constitutionally guaranteed rights of the citizens of this State to free
1. This action arises under the U.S. Constitution, particularly the First and Fourteenth
Amendments, and the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.
2. Jurisdiction is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343. The Court has
3. The Court has authority to grant the requested declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
2201 and 2202 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 57, and to issue the requested injunctive relief pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. The Court is authorized the award attorneys’ fees and
3
Case 8:24-cv-00753-DLB Document 1 Filed 03/13/24 Page 4 of 20
4. Venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) in that the facts giving rise to
Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district, and the parties either reside or maintain a principal
Plaintiffs
5. The Alpha Psi Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity is a Maryland unincorporated association that
has roughly sixty-seven (67) members, all of whom are current students at the University of
Maryland. The Chapter was officially established at the University in 1929, and is a member
6. Theta Chi Fraternity’s mission is to develop college-age men into successful students, good
citizens, lifelong brothers, and resolute leaders. The various traditions that have characterized
Theta Chi include an emphasis on true friendship, mutual benefit and improvement, service to
others, and stiving to live up to the Fraternity’s ideals, as exemplified by its motto and Creed.1
7. The Beta Kappa Chapter of Kappa Alpha Order is a Maryland unincorporated association that
has around seventy (70) members, all of whom are current students at the University of
Maryland. The Chapter was officially established at the University in 1914, and is a member
8. Kappa Alpha Order brings together men who share the following values: reverence, gentility,
9. The Epsilon Delta Chapter of Alpha Sigma Phi Fraternity is a Maryland unincorporated
association that has approximately sixty (60) members, all of whom are current students at the
1
What We Believe In, THETA CHI FRATERNITY, https://www.thetachi.org/ideals (last visited Mar.
13, 2024).
2
Purpose and Values, KAPPA ALPHA ORDER, https://www.kappaalphaorder.org/about/values/ (last
visited Mar. 13, 2024).
4
Case 8:24-cv-00753-DLB Document 1 Filed 03/13/24 Page 5 of 20
University of Maryland. The Chapter was officially established at the University in 1998, and
10. The Alpha Sigma Phi Fraternity’s purpose is to better the man through the creation and
11. The Epsilon Gamma Chapter of Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity is a Maryland unincorporated
association that has approximately 115 members, all of whom are current students at the
University of Maryland. The Chapter was officially established at the University in 1930, and
12. The Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity emphasizes preparing its members to be leaders in their
and networking.4
13. John Doe 1 is a current student at the University of Maryland and a member of the Beta Kappa
14. John Doe 2 is a current student at the University of Maryland and a member of the Epsilon
15. John Doe 3 is a current student at the University of Maryland and a member of the Alpha Psi
3
Mission, Values, Purpose, & Motto, ALPHA SIGMA PHI FRATERNITY, https://alphasig.org/about-
the-fraternity-1#72da3bed-8eda-45f7-a017-d3ee4cc65ad9 (last visited Mar. 13, 2024).
4
The Creed of Alpha Tau Omega, ALPHA TAU OMEGA, https://ato.org/home/ato-creed/ (last visited
Mar. 13, 2024).
5
Case 8:24-cv-00753-DLB Document 1 Filed 03/13/24 Page 6 of 20
Defendants
16. Defendant James Bond is the Director of Student Conduct at the University of Maryland. He
has signed and authorized both the First and Second Suspension and No Contact Order
17. Defendant James McShay is the Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs and Interim
Director of Fraternity and Sorority Life at the University of Maryland. He also has signed and
authorized both the First and Second Suspension and No Contact Order. He is named in his
18. Defendant Patricia Perillo is the Vice President for Student Affairs at the University of
Maryland, the individual to whom Defendants Bond and McShay report, and who, upon
information and belief, exercises review and control over investigation and disciplinary
decisions at the University. She is named in her individual and official capacity.
19. Defendant Darryll Pines is the President of the University of Maryland and, upon information
and belief, is the person to whom Defendant Perillo reports, and who is ultimately in charge of
ensuring that the policies of the University, including those pertaining to student conduct and
discipline, are properly enforced. He is named in her individual and official capacity.
20. Defendants Bond, McShay, Perillo, and Pines are officials of the University of Maryland, and
21. Defendant University of Maryland is a public university of the State of Maryland, and as such,
its action and those of its officials undertaken on behalf of the University constitute state
actions.
6
Case 8:24-cv-00753-DLB Document 1 Filed 03/13/24 Page 7 of 20
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
22. In Spring 2018, the University of Maryland adopted a Statement of Free Speech Values, a copy
23. The Free Speech Policy provides in part that “a university must protect and guarantee
intellectual and academic freedom. To do so it must promote an environment in which any and
all ideas are presented. Through open exchange, vigorous debate, and rational discernment, the
24. The Free Speech Policy further provides that “every member of the campus community has
an obligation to support the right of free expression at the university, and to refrain from actions
that reduce intellectual discussion. No member shall prevent such expression, which is
protected under the constitutions of the United States and the State of Maryland.”
25. Likewise, the University’s Office of General Counsel publicly opined on its website that
“public universities, like UMD, are subject to the constitutional restrictions set forth in the First
Amendment and thus may not take action which infringes an individual’s freedom of speech
under the Constitution.” The Office of the General Counsel further recognized that “the term
“speech” constitutes expression that encompasses for more than just words.”
26. Within the context of student organizations, Defendants, through the University’s General
7
Case 8:24-cv-00753-DLB Document 1 Filed 03/13/24 Page 8 of 20
(Emphasis added).
27. The University pledges in Section V(B) of its Code of Student Conduct that:
(Emphasis added.)
28. Section IV of the University’s Code of Student Conduct states that the Director of Student
Conduct may issue No Contact Orders “whenever there is evidence that the continued
interaction of the Student with other particular members of the University community poses a
29. Notwithstanding these proclamations of respect for First Amendment protections of freedom
of speech and association, on March 1, 2024, Defendants McShay and Bond sent the March 1,
2024, Suspension and No Contact Order to Plaintiffs (the “Original Order”). A true and
30. Upon information and belief, the Original Order was only applicable to the social fraternities
and sororities, including Plaintiffs, that are members of the Interfraternity Council and
8
Case 8:24-cv-00753-DLB Document 1 Filed 03/13/24 Page 9 of 20
32. The Original Order required that all Plaintiffs “are to have absolutely NO CONTACT with any
33. To make abundantly clear how all-encompassing this order was, the Original Order
commanded that “this directive means that every current member of the organization must not
contact any new member or prospective new member via in-person, telephone, postal mail,
34. To instill fear, the Original Order warned that “failure to abide by this directive will result in
disciplinary action.”
35. Taken in full, the Original Order was a complete gag order constituting an unlawful prior
36. Moreover, the Original Order was issued in the total absence of evidence that the continued
interaction between these students posed a substantial threat to themselves or others or to the
stability and continuation of normal University operations, as the Code of Student Conduct
requires.
37. On March 6, 2024, Defendants McShay and Bond sent the March 6, 2024, Suspension and No
Contact Order to Plaintiffs (the “Amended Order”). A true and accurate copy of the Amended
38. Upon information and belief, the Amended Order was only applicable to the social fraternities
and sororities, including Plaintiffs, that are members of the Interfraternity Council and
39. The Amended Order remains in effect as of the date of the filing of this Complaint, and will
continue indefinitely.
9
Case 8:24-cv-00753-DLB Document 1 Filed 03/13/24 Page 10 of 20
40. Perhaps recognizing that the Original Order was blatantly unlawful, the University retreated
somewhat in issuing the Amended Order. Specifically, the Amended Order allows affected
students to discuss some topics, but other topics are still prohibited.
42. While the Amended Order is something less than a complete gag order, it is a content-based
43. Moreover, the Amended Order retains the restriction on all “new member activities and all
44. According to the Amended Order, the stated purpose behind the restrictions is:
45. As threatened in the Original Order, the Amended Order warns that “failure to abide by this
46. Defendants issued the Amended Order notwithstanding the various statements of the
University and Office of the General Counsel professing respect for the protection of freedom
of speech.
10
Case 8:24-cv-00753-DLB Document 1 Filed 03/13/24 Page 11 of 20
47. Defendants issued the Amended Order notwithstanding the failure by Defendants to provide
48. Moreover, the Amended Order was issued in the total absence of evidence that the continued
interaction of these students with other particular members of the University community poses
49. Defendants Bond, McShay, Perillo, and Pines each knew about the University’s misconduct
50. Plaintiffs intend to continue operating at the University, but they face real and immediate
threats that Defendants will again proceed with investigating and/or imposing disciplinary
measures devoid of procedural due process protections, or depriving Plaintiffs of their First
51. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
52. The University of Maryland and its officials are state actors subject to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
53. By issuing the Original Order and the Amended Order, each of which contained threats of
rights of free speech to engage with particular members of the University community.
54. Under the Original Order, the Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiffs’ rights of free speech with
11
Case 8:24-cv-00753-DLB Document 1 Filed 03/13/24 Page 12 of 20
55. The Amended Order constitutes an unlawful content-based restriction on Plaintiffs’ speech.
56. The Amended Order does not serve a compelling governmental interest.
57. The Amended Order is overbroad, as it restricts more speech than necessary to accomplish any
58. Both the Original Order and the Amended Order unlawfully infringe on Plaintiffs’ rights both
59. The Original Order and the Amended Order unconstitutionally discriminate between
categories of speech, based upon both the content of the message that the speakers seek to
60. The Original Order and the Amended Order further operate as an unconstitutional restraint
because they do not provide a specified brief period for its prohibitory scheme, disallows the
status quo while investigation interviews are completed, and fails to provide a prompt, final
disciplinary outcome.
61. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
62. By issuing the Original Order and the Amended Order, each of which contained threats of
63. Under the Original Order, the Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiffs’ rights to freely associate
64. The Amended Order constitutes an unlawful content-based restriction on Plaintiffs’ right to
associate.
12
Case 8:24-cv-00753-DLB Document 1 Filed 03/13/24 Page 13 of 20
65. The Amended Order does not serve a compelling governmental interest.
66. The Amended Order is overbroad, as it restricts more associational rights than necessary to
67. Each of the Original Order and the Amended Order unlawfully infringe on Plaintiffs’ rights
68. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
69. The University of Maryland’s Code of Student Conduct states that the Director of Student
Conduct may issue No Contact Orders “whenever there is evidence that the continued
interaction of the Student with other particular members of the University community poses a
70. Both the Original Order and the Amended Order contained a “NO CONTACT” provision.
(Capitalization in original.)
71. The University admittedly had no “evidence” that the “continued interaction” of any of the
affected students posed a “substantial threat to themselves or others, or to the stability and
72. The restrictions contained in the Original Order and the Amended Order contained restrictions
on interpersonal contact, speech, and association that issued without due process as required
13
Case 8:24-cv-00753-DLB Document 1 Filed 03/13/24 Page 14 of 20
73. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
74. Article 40 of the Maryland Constitution’s Declaration of Rights provides “that every citizen of
the State ought to be allowed to speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects.”
75. “Article 40 is read generally in pari materia with the First Amendment.” Nefedro v.
76. For the reasons articulated in the First and Second Causes of Action, the restrictions on speech
and association contained in the Original Order and the Amended Order, both on their face and
as applied, infringe Plaintiffs’ rights to exercise free speech and freely associate under Article
77. The restrictions contained in the Original Order and the Amended Order impermissibly chill
Plaintiffs’ protected speech and, without declaratory and injunctive relief, will continue to do
so.
79. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants concerning
Plaintiffs’ rights under the U.S. Constitution. A judicial declaration is necessary and
80. Plaintiffs are seeking a judicial determination of their rights against Defendants as they pertain
to Plaintiffs’ rights to speak to all members of the University community without being
subjected to unconstitutional policies that impose prior restraints on speech, and that are vague,
14
Case 8:24-cv-00753-DLB Document 1 Filed 03/13/24 Page 15 of 20
and proper that a declaratory judgment issue, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and Fed. R. Civ. P.
57, declaring the Original Order and the Amended Order to be unconstitutional on their face
82. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2202 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, this Court should issue a permanent
injunction prohibiting the Defendants from enforcing the restrictions on Plaintiffs’ expressive
activities in the Original Order and the Amended Order to the extent they are unconstitutional
and to prevent the ongoing violation of constitutional rights. Citizens in the State of Maryland,
including Student Plaintiffs—indeed, all the members of the Chapter Plaintiffs—are suffering
are inadequate to remedy their harm, and the balance of equities and public interest both favor
enforcing the prohibitions contained in the Original Order and the Amended Order;
expression contained in the Original Order and the Amended Order are
Plaintiffs’ rights as guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution;
C. Plaintiffs’ reasonable costs and expenses of this action, including attorneys’ fees, in
15
Case 8:24-cv-00753-DLB Document 1 Filed 03/13/24 Page 16 of 20
Respectfully submitted,
16
Case 8:24-cv-00753-DLB Document 1 Filed 03/13/24 Page 17 of 20
VERIFICATION
The undersigned, being first duly cautioned and sworn state as follows:
We are the Presidents of the Chapter Plaintiffs, having been elected to such positions by our respective
Chapters. We are familiar with the various directives adopted or approved by the University of
Maryland referenced in the Complaint.
We have reviewed the foregoing Complaint and verify under the penalty of perjury that its factual
allegations are true to the best of our knowledge and belief, particularly with respect to facts relevant
to each of our respective Chapters.
__________________________________ ___________________________________
Jackson Hochhauser, President Garrett Bruce, President
Alpha Psi Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity Beta Kappa Chapter of Kappa Alpha Order
03/13/24
______________ ______________
Date Date
__________________________________ __________________________________
Christopher Chang, President Joseph Campbell, President
Epsilon Delta Chapter of Alpha Sigma Epsilon Gamma Chapter of Alpha Tau
Phi Fraternity Omega Fraternity
______________ ______________
Date Date
Case 8:24-cv-00753-DLB Document 1 Filed 03/13/24 Page 18 of 20
VERIFICATION
The undersigned, being first duly cautioned and sworn state as follows:
We are the Presidents of the Chapter Plaintiffs, having been elected to such positions by our respective
Chapters. We are familiar with the various directives adopted or approved by the University of
Maryland referenced in the Complaint.
We have reviewed the foregoing Complaint and verify under the penalty of perjury that its factual
allegations are true to the best of our knowledge and belief, particularly with respect to facts relevant
to each of our respective Chapters.
__________________________________ ___________________________________
Jackson Hochhauser, President Garrett Bruce, President
Alpha Psi Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity Beta Kappa Chapter of Kappa Alpha Order
______________ ______________
3/13/24
Date Date
__________________________________ __________________________________
Christopher Chang, President Joseph Campbell, President
Epsilon Delta Chapter of Alpha Sigma Epsilon Gamma Chapter of Alpha Tau
Phi Fraternity Omega Fraternity
______________ ______________
Date Date
Case 8:24-cv-00753-DLB Document 1 Filed 03/13/24 Page 19 of 20
VERIFICATION
The undersigned, being first duly cautioned and sworn state as follows:
We are the Presidents of the Chapter Plaintiffs, having been elected to such positions by our respective
Chapters. We are familiar with the various directives adopted or approved by the University of
Maryland referenced in the Complaint.
We have reviewed the foregoing Complaint and verify under the penalty of perjury that its factual
allegations are true to the best of our knowledge and belief, particularly with respect to facts relevant
to each of our respective Chapters.
__________________________________ ___________________________________
Jackson Hochhauser, President Garrett Bruce, President
Alpha Psi Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity Beta Kappa Chapter of Kappa Alpha Order
______________ ______________
Date Date
__________________________________ __________________________________
Christopher Chang, President Joseph Campbell, President
Epsilon Delta Chapter of Alpha Sigma Epsilon Gamma Chapter of Alpha Tau
Phi Fraternity Omega Fraternity
03/13/2024
______________ ______________
Date Date
Case 8:24-cv-00753-DLB Document 1 Filed 03/13/24 Page 20 of 20
VERIFICATION
The undersigned, being first duly cautioned and sworn state as follows:
We are the Presidents of the Chapter Plaintiffs, having been elected to such positions by our respective
Chapters. We are familiar with the various directives adopted or approved by the University of
Maryland referenced in the Complaint.
We have reviewed the foregoing Complaint and verify under the penalty of perjury that its factual
allegations are true to the best of our knowledge and belief, particularly with respect to facts relevant
to each of our respective Chapters.
__________________________________ ___________________________________
Jackson Hochhauser, President Garrett Bruce, President
Alpha Psi Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity Beta Kappa Chapter of Kappa Alpha Order
______________ ______________
Date Date
__________________________________ __________________________________
Christopher Chang, President Joseph Campbell, President
Epsilon Delta Chapter of Alpha Sigma Epsilon Gamma Chapter of Alpha Tau
Phi Fraternity Omega Fraternity
______________ ______________
Date Date