Pro-Palestine protesters have dropped First Amendment claims against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill now that university officials have ended orders that banned those protesters from campus in 2024.

Pro-Palestine protesters have dropped First Amendment claims against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill now that university officials have ended orders that banned those protesters from campus in 2024.

Other portions of the protesters’ federal lawsuit against the university continue. The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals is considering UNC’s request to have the case dismissed because of sovereign immunity.

“On May 21, 2026, Defendants permanently lifted the trespass notices that had indefinitely banned Plaintiffs from accessing UNC Chapel Hill’s campus,” according to a joint court filing Thursday from the protesters and the university. “Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss all remaining First Amendment claims.”

“All parties assent to this stipulated dismissal,” the court filing continued.

A separate document filed Thursday outlined a proposed schedule for addressing the rest of the protesters’ lawsuit. Discovery, motions, and briefing would extend into February 2027.

UNC officials filed a motion in May asking the 4th Circuit to reject portions of the lawsuit filed by protesters who were banned from campus in 2024.

A trial judge ruled in February that portions of the protesters’ lawsuit could move forward.

“This case presents a straightforward question that is easily resolved by this Court’s recent precedent: Is a claim brought in federal court under North Carolina’s State Constitution barred by the State’s federal-law sovereign immunity? Under Global Innovative Concepts, LLC v. State, the answer is ‘Yes,’” wrote state Special Deputy Attorney General Lindsay Vance Smith in a 4th Circuit brief filed for UNC-CH.

“Just like the district court in Global Innovative Concepts, the district court below misunderstood the distinction between a State’s immunity from suit under state law and the State’s constitutionally-protected immunity from suit in federal court,” Smith added. “As a result, the district court concluded that North Carolina Supreme Court precedent permitted Plaintiffs to bring their state constitutional claim in federal court. This conclusion was wrong, and the district court’s decision should be reversed.”