This case concerns a UC Berkeley-based movement, echoed by other college campuses across the United States in the late 1970s, to encourage university divestment in corporate interests that support apartheid government in South Africa. Specifically, the UC Divestment Coalition was comprised of a diverse group of organizations across the campus in order to assist with coordinating anti-apartheid and divestment work across the entire UC system ("UC Regents"). Beginning in 1984, defendants (the UC Divestment Coalition) organized peaceful protests to publicize the fact that the University of California had 2.4 billion dollars in South Africa-linked investments - an inordinate amount, compared to other colleges, they argued. A preliminary statement reads: "Defendants belive that the university has abdicated its role as a moral leader inasmuch as it persists in its financial support for the current South African regime." The ACLU represented the UC Divestment Coalition in their lawsuit against the governing body of the UC system, the UC Regents.

After a series of protestor arrests on the Berkeley campus, the UC Divestment Coalition organized another protest on November 6, 1985, and refused to leave until Chancellor Heyman met with them. Also present were "legal observers" from the ACLU, who were there to ensure that protestors rights were not violated, and who were some of the first to be arrested. At a follow up protest on March 31, 1986, demonstrators constructed a symbolic "shantytown" in front of Berkeley's administrative offices. Mid-protest, the university then sought a temporary restraining order against the protestors, enjoining (preventing) them from constructing anything (such as a shanty) whose placement might constitute a "fire hazard." As the protests escalated, the university amassed a large police presence at the protests. The ACLU writes: "The paramount interest of the police was to break up the peaceful demonstration, not prevent any fire hazards. The fire hazard served as the pretext."

At this event, "scores of students and demonstrators were injured by the police. At least two members of the press, with their credentials clearly displayed, were beaten by the police." The university issued bans on 89 students (named as "Does" 1-89) and faculty, which prevented them from setting foot on campus, and failed to properly notify them when these bans were lifted. It is the ban issue that the ACLU seized on in their defense, arguing that the bans violated Penal Code section 626.4 (banning statute), and also the constitutional right to due process. The retaliation and intimidation that the bans communicated were also at issue. They also argue that the singling out of legal advisors and lawyers constitutes harassment of the students that they represent, as well as of the legal advisors and lawyers themselves. They also singled out a police officer named Hammett, who was particularly violent, and who needed to be restrained by his peers.

The outcome of this case is not known. In 1986, caving to social pressure, the UC system agreed to a policy of phased full divestment from companies doing business in South Africa, to be completed by 1990.