American Muslims for
Palestine v. Miyares

Federal challenge to state demands for nonprofit donor lists and contempt fines.

American Muslims for Palestine v. Miyares is a federal case handled by Jump Start Legal Justice Center that challenges a state attorney general’s attempt to compel extensive donor lists and other records from a nonprofit organization. The lawsuit alleges that the Virginia attorney general’s use of civil investigative demands and contempt sanctions to force production of donor lists violates the organization’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, including freedom of association and protections against overbroad and unconstitutional investigations.

Case descriptions are provided for general information and do not replace the official court record.

Information

  • Case Name: American Muslims for Palestine v. Jason S. Miyares, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Virginia (caption shortened for readability)



  • Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas


  • Status: Active


  • Filed: October 2025


  • Issue Area: Free speech, assembly and protest rights, academic freedom, equal protection, unlawful arrest, retaliation


  • Clients: Ben Wright and Rosemary Admiral, history professors at the University of Texas at Dallas


  • Key Rights At Stake: Campus protest rights, protection from retaliation for supporting student speech, equal treatment by state and university officials, protection from arrest without probable cause

Background

In October 2023, Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares publicly announced an investigation into American Muslims for Palestine, a nonprofit that describes its mission as advancing the movement for justice in Palestine by educating the American public. Using a legal tool known as a civil investigative demand, the attorney general’s office sought a broad array of documents, including internal records, banking information, and detailed lists of AMP’s donors and supporters.

AMP acknowledges that it initially overlooked Virginia’s charitable registration requirements and took steps to correct that by registering with the state and providing some requested documents. However, the organization resisted demands for donor lists, arguing that compelled disclosure of those names would chill supporters’ willingness to associate with and donate to AMP, and that the demand was overly broad and not justified by evidence of wrongdoing.

In September 2025, after AMP declined to produce the donor lists, a Virginia state court judge held the organization in contempt and ordered escalating fines of $1,000 per day until AMP turned over the lists. AMP then filed a petition and complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting that the donor-list demands and contempt order violate the First Amendment and seeking federal relief.

Claims And Legal Issues

This case raises central questions about the limits of state investigative power when it intersects with nonprofit speech and association.

  • Alleged violations of the First Amendment freedom of association, based on the demand for donor lists and the threat of fines for failing to disclose them.


  • Alleged violations of the First Amendment’s protection against viewpoint-discriminatory or politically motivated investigations targeting a pro-Palestinian non-profit.


  • Alleged violations of due process and related protections under the Fourteenth Amendment, given the use of contempt sanctions tied to an investigative demand whose constitutionality is in question.


  • Claims under federal civil-rights statutes seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of demands and sanctions that allegedly infringe core constitutional rights.

Not every argument made in court is listed here. The focus is on the central constitutional and statutory issues.

Procedural History

This case raises questions about how federal constitutional protections apply when public universities and state officials respond to campus protest and faculty support for student speech.

  • October 29, 2023:
    Attorney General Miyares announces an investigation into AMP, issues a civil investigative demand, and seeks broad categories of documents including donor lists.



  • Late 2023 – 2024:

    AMP registers with Virginia as a charitable organization and produces some documents but continues to object to producing donor lists, citing First Amendment concerns. Litigation over the investigative demand proceeds in Virginia state courts.



  • July 2025:

    The Virginia Court of Appeals rejects AMP’s petition to prevent immediate enforcement of the attorney general’s demand, while not yet issuing a detailed ruling on the underlying constitutional questions.


  • September 29, 2025:

    A state court judge in Richmond holds AMP in contempt for not producing donor lists and orders a $1,000 per day fine until the lists are turned over.



  • September 26, 2025:

    AMP files its federal petition and complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking to block enforcement of the donor-list demands and related contempt sanctions while constitutional questions are resolved.



  • October 3, 2025:

    Judge Leonie Brinkema holds a hearing and issues an oral ruling granting AMP’s request for temporary relief.



  • October 17, 2025:

    Judge Brinkema issues a written opinion granting a temporary injunction and restraining order blocking enforcement of the contempt order and daily fines as to donor lists, finding that AMP is likely to succeed on the merits of its freedom of association claim and that disclosure of the donor lists would cause irreparable harm.

Entries are summarized and do not include every filing. For full details, consult the official court docket.

Selected Filings And Orders

Key publicly available filings and court orders in this case may include:

  • Federal Petition and Complaint (filed September 26, 2025):

    AMP’s initial federal filing outlining the investigation, donor-list demands, contempt order, and constitutional claims.



  • Temporary Injunction and Restraining Order (October 17, 2025):

    Judge Brinkema’s written opinion granting temporary relief, explaining that once donor lists are disclosed the harm to associational rights cannot be undone, even if a court later finds the demand unconstitutional.


  • Subsequent briefing and orders:

    To be added as Christy designates specific documents for linking, including any appellate filings if the case is appealed.

Oral Arguments

Judge Brinkema held a hearing on AMP’s request for temporary relief on October 3, 2025, and issued an oral ruling from the bench granting the request, followed by a written opinion.

If audio of that hearing or any later appellate oral arguments becomes publicly available, links can be added here. At this time, no publicly hosted recordings are linked from this site.

Any recordings will be hosted by the courts or approved platforms. Links from this site will direct you to those official sources.

Why This Case Matters

This case may help clarify how far state officials can go in demanding sensitive information from nonprofits before they cross constitutional lines.

  • When demands for donor lists and internal records become overbroad enough to infringe freedom of association


  • How courts should balance legitimate enforcement interests with the risk of chilling political, religious, or advocacy-based giving


  • What safeguards must be in place before fines or other sanctions are imposed to coerce disclosure of protected associational information

The outcome could affect not only AMP, but also many other nonprofits whose supporters may be reluctant to donate or participate if they believe their names will be turned over to government officials in contentious investigations.

Role Of Jump Start Legal Justice Center

Jump Start Legal Justice Center, through Christy Jump, serves as lead counsel for American Muslims for Palestine in this federal matter. Christy’s role includes developing the factual record of the investigation, briefing and arguing the constitutional issues in federal court, and coordinating with local counsel and organizational partners as appropriate.

Important Disclaimers

Case descriptions on this site are summaries intended to provide general information about the types of matters handled by the firm. They are not legal advice, and they do not replace the official court docket, filings, or orders.

  • Past or current case outcomes do not predict results in any other matter


  • Descriptions may omit details for privacy, confidentiality, or clarity


  • Reading about a case or contacting the firm about it does not create an attorney client relationship

If Your Situation Sounds Similar

If your organization is facing an investigation or document demand that includes donor lists or other sensitive associational information, a focused review of your specific facts can help determine whether federal court may be appropriate and what options might exist.

This website is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing this site or contacting Jump Start Legal Justice Center does not create an attorney client relationship. No attorney client relationship exists unless and until a written fee agreement is signed. Attorney licensed in Texas. Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.