In a landmark move, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has dismissed all charges against seven pro-Palestinian demonstrators. Those allegations are compounded by bias allegations that swirled around her office’s handling of campus protests. That sparked alarm about the potential that political contributions are dictating law enforcement actions.
Nessel’s office originally filed more serious criminal charges against the protesters than other state prosecutors. This highly controversial decision drew condemnation on all sides. The university regents, frustrated by local prosecutors’ reluctance to pursue charges against most students arrested during the demonstrations, recruited Nessel to take over the case. Implementation, but this recruitment has left many shaking their heads given that six of the eight regents had donated more than $33,000 cumulatively to Nessel’s campaigns.
The financial backing did not stop there. Nessel had benefited from large donations from Zionist state legislators and university donors who have publicly attacked pro-Palestinian protests. Buoyed by these connections, allegations or implications of bias soon started to percolate against her office. U.S. Rep Rashida Tlaib and supporters of the protesters contended that the university had called on Nessel because she is a political crony.
One recent, major episode removed any doubt about the bond between Nessel and the university board members. One regent was so pleased that he shared a picture of himself standing next to Nessel and State Representative Jeremy Moss at a Michigan Jewish Democratic Caucus event. In addition to the arrest, Moss has been a vocal opponent of Gaza protests, raising alarm bells over perceived bias of the prosecution.
Defense attorney Amir Makled welcomed the dropping of charges, stating, “We’re hoping this sends a message to other institutions locally and nationally that protest is not a crime, and dissent is not disorder.” Makled noted that the decision to drop charges was influenced, in part, by an October exposé from The Guardian. This report exposed Nessel’s deep personal, financial and political ties to the university regents.
Nessel’s office criticized the court’s handling of the case in no uncertain terms. In doing so, they highlighted the judiciary’s glacial progress. They dismissed the allegations of bias as “baseless and absurd.” They reasserted that their actions were being driven by legal requirements, rather than made captive by political pressure.
By dropping the charges against the protesters, Nessel’s office may have sought to distance itself from the mounting scrutiny and allegations of bias. The ruling is being celebrated by some as a major win for protest advocates. That does not eliminate serious concerns about how #MeToo, political donations and judicial discretion are intersecting here.
This incident points to deeper currents of animosity toward free inquiry and political speech on campuses today. For example, sensitive protests, like the one that erupted over Israel-Gaza conflict, are constant. Even beyond Michigan, Nessel’s actions could have effects far beyond her state, opening up larger conversations about the role partisanship plays in legal issues and their effects.