According to today’s order by Judge Mark Scarsi, C.D. Cal. Frankl v. Prince Regent:
In 2024, in Los Angeles, California, United States of America, Jewish students were excluded from part of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith. This fact is so unimaginable, and so abhorrent to our Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom, that it bears repeating, Jewish students excluded from part of UCLA campus for refusing to denounce their faith. UCLA doesn’t dispute that. Instead, UCLA claims it has no responsibility to protect Jewish students’ religious freedom because the exclusions were orchestrated by third-party protesters. But under constitutional principles, UCLA may not be permitted to provide services to certain students when it knows that other students have been excluded on religious grounds, regardless of who orchestrated the exclusion….
On April 25, 2024, a group of pro-Palestinian protesters occupied a portion of the UCLA campus, the Royce Quad, and established an encampment. Royce Quad is a major thoroughfare and gathering place adjacent to several campus buildings, including Powell Library and Royce Hall. Plywood and metal barriers surrounded the camp. Protesters set up checkpoints and required passers-by to wear specific wristbands to pass. News reports showed that protesters were guarding the entrance to the camp, and those who supported the existence of the state of Israel were being turned away. Protesters associated with the camp “blocked students’ access to classrooms and directly disrupted teaching”.
The plaintiffs were three Jewish students who claimed they had a religious obligation to support the Jewish state of Israel. Before the protests, Plaintiff Frankel frequently used the Royce Quad. After protesters established an encampment, plaintiff Frankel stopped using the Royce Quad because he believed he could not move through the encampment without denying Israel. He also saw protesters trying to set up camp on June 10, 2024, in Shapiro Courtyard at the UCLA School of Law.
Likewise, plaintiff Qayum was unable to enter the Powell Library because he knew that walking through the encampment that blocked the library entrance would pose a risk of violence. He also canceled plans to meet friends at the Ackerman Union after four protesters stopped him as he walked toward the Jens steps and repeatedly asked if he had a wristband. Plaintiff Qayum was also unable to study at Powell Library because protesters at the camp blocked his access.
Plaintiff Shemuelian also decided not to cross Royce Quad because she knew she would have to give up her religious beliefs to do so. The encampment resulted in UCLA effectively opening certain of its programs, activities, and campus to other students when UCLA knew that some Jewish students, including the plaintiffs, were excluded because of their true religious beliefs area.
The encampment lasted for a week until the early morning hours of May 2, when UCLA directed the UCLA Police Department and outside law enforcement agencies to enter and clear the encampment. Since UCLA dismantled the encampment, protesters have continued to try to disrupt campus. For example, on May 6, protesters briefly occupied areas of campus. On May 23, protesters established a new encampment, “erected barricades, built fortifications, blocked access to parts of campus and buildings” and “disrupted campus operations.”
Most recently, on June 10, protesters “set up an unauthorized and illegal encampment that included tents, canopies, wooden shields and water-filled barriers” on campus. These protesters “limited public access” and “disrupted nearby final exams.” Some students “miss”[ed] “They were prevented from entering the classroom because of the final exam,” and others were “evacuated midway” during the final exam.
Based on these facts and other allegations, the plaintiffs allege violations of their federal constitutional rights, including violations of the Equal Protection Clause, the Free Speech Clause, and the Free Exercise Clause; and alleged violations of their federal civil rights, including violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and conspiracy. Interfering with civil rights and failing to prevent the conspiracy; alleging violations of his state constitutional rights, including violations of the California Equal Protection Clause and California Free Exercise Clause; and alleging violations of his state civil rights, including violations of Section 220 of the California Education Code, 1976 The Ralph Civil Rights Act and the Bain Civil Rights Act….
The court rejected UCLA’s longstanding objections, in part because:
UCLA argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to allege that there was an imminent possibility of future harm… UCLA claimed that the remedies it instituted after the Royce Quad camp made any “future harm, at best, It’s all speculative.” These actions include creating a new Office of Campus Safety and transferring day-to-day responsibility for campus safety to the Emergency Operations Center. These changes, while laudable, do not minimize the risk that plaintiffs will be “wronged again” by being excluded from UCLA’s regular schedule because of less than a “sufficient likelihood” that their sincerely held religious beliefs Programs, activities and outside of campus areas.
First, protesters have violated UCLA’s protest rules at least three times since UCLA made the change: May 6, May 23, and June 10. email, while these events may not have been as disruptive as the Royce Quad camp, the June 10 incident “disrupted final exams” by temporarily blocking off multiple areas of campus and lasted from 3:15 p.m. night. Likewise, the events on May 6 and 23 disrupted access to several campus areas, according to UCLA emails. Additionally, the relative quiet on the UCLA campus over the past few months is belied by the fact that fewer people are on campus during the summer and that armed conflict in Gaza continues.
Finally, while UCLA’s concern for safety is compelling, UCLA failed to allay plaintiffs’ concerns that if exclusionary camps returned, some Jewish students might be excluded from California because of their sincere religious beliefs UCLA typically offers programs, activities, and areas outside of campus. In response to the concerns raised at the hearing, UCLA “did not state[] To be sure, if protesters returned and excluded Jewish students, they “would not” provide the programs, activities, and campus areas normally available to non-Jewish students.
It remains to be seen how effective UCLA’s policy changes will be for the entire campus. While the protests in May and June did not appear to have resulted in the same religious-based exclusions as previous camps, raising plaintiffs’ free exercise concerns, the court found there was an imminent risk that such exclusions would return in the fall with students , staff, faculty, and non-UCLA community members. Therefore, given that the inquiry tilts sharply toward a finding of standing when government action “implicates First Amendment rights,” the court held that the plaintiffs had sufficiently demonstrated the likelihood of future harm arising from standing….
The court concluded that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on the free exercise clause claim (and therefore declined to consider any other claims):
Free Exercise Clause… “‘Protection[s] “Religious observers object to unequal treatment” and are subject to the strictest scrutiny of laws that treat religious people as having “special disabilities” based on their religious status.[A] The state violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from other available public benefits.
Here, UCLA provides certain programs, activities, and campus areas when certain students, including plaintiffs, are excluded based on their truly held religious beliefs. Plaintiff Frankel, for example, could not cross Royce Square because entering the camp would require denying the state of Israel. Likewise, Plaintiff Ghayoum was prevented from entering campus areas at a protester checkpoint, and Plaintiff Shemuelian was unable to cross Royce Quad like other students…. Plaintiffs were excluded from campus resources while other students retained access, raising serious questions about the reasonableness of their free exercise claims….
The plaintiffs made a contested claim that UCLA’s actions violated their Free Exercise Clause rights. Furthermore, given the risk that a resurgence of protests in the fall would once again restrict certain Jewish students from participating in normally available programs, activities, and campus areas, the court held that without a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs would likely suffer irreparable harm… .
Under the court’s injunction, UCLA retains flexibility in governing the university. Specifically, the injunction does not mandate that UCLA must develop any specific policies and procedures or require UCLA to take any specific actions in response to campus protests. Rather, the injunction simply requires that UCLA must cease making generally available programs, activities, and any portion of campus areas available to any Jewish student who is unable to use those programs, activities, and campus areas. campus area. How best to make any unavailable programs, activities, and campus areas available again is at the sole discretion of UCLA….
Accordingly, the court issued the following order:
[1.] Defendants Drake, Block, Hunt, Beck, Gordon, and Braziel (“Defendants”) are prohibited from making any generally available program, activity, or campus area available to students if they know that the generally available program, activity, or campus area does not fully meet the requirements. Also available to Jewish students.
[2.] Defendants are prohibited from knowingly allowing or facilitating the exclusion of Jewish students from normally available portions of UCLA’s programs, activities, and campus areas, whether as a result of relegation tactics or otherwise.
[3.] On or before August 15, 2024, Defendants shall direct the Student Affairs Mitigation/Monitor (“SAM”) and any and all campus security teams (including, but not limited to, UCPD and UCLA Security Teams) not to assist or participate in any efforts to obstruct access. ACT provides programs, activities, and campus areas generally available to Jewish students.
[4.] For the purposes of this Order, all references to the exclusion of Jewish students shall include the exclusion of Jewish students based on the religious beliefs of the Jewish State of Israel.
[5.] Nothing in this order prevents defendants from excluding Jewish students from generally available programs, activities, and campus areas in accordance with the UCLA Code of Conduct standards that apply to all UCLA students.
[6.] If the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit does not stay enforcement of the injunction, this preliminary injunction will become effective on August 15, 2024 and will remain in effect pending the trial of this action or further order of this court or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit .
The court also stated:
[T]his case [is not] With respect to the content or opinions contained in any protest or counter-protest slogan or other act of expression, such content or opinions are generally protected by the First Amendment. See Virginia v. Black538 US 343, 358 (2003) (“A hallmark of protecting free speech is allowing the ‘free trade of ideas’—even ideas that the vast majority of people may find repugnant or uncomfortable.” (Quote Abrams v. United States250 US 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting)); See also Texas v. Johnson491 US 397, 414 (1989) (“If there is a fundamental principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself objectionable or objectionable.”).
Amanda G. Dixon, Richard C. Osborne, Eric C. Rasbach, Mark L. Rienzi, Laura W. Slaves of the Beckett Foundation and Jordan T. Warburg, along with Erin E. Murphy, Matthew David Rowan, and former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Paul Clement (Clement & Murphy, LLC) for the plaintiffs.
