‘So Unimaginable and So Abhorrent’: Federal Judge Orders UCLA to Stop Aiding Activists Enforcing Jew-Free Zones on Campus

A Los Angeles federal district court ordered the University of California, Los Angeles, to stop allowing and assisting in self-described pro-Palestinian activists’ creation of what amount to Jew-free zones on campus, holding that the university may not offer classes if Jewish students are prohibited from participating in the programming.

Those who occupied encampments on the university’s property disallowed Jews from passing through the quad unless they would disavow Israel and, by extension, their Jewish faith. UCLA’s position had been that the encampments preventing Jewish students from accessing certain areas of campus were not its responsibility.

Despite that contention, the university erected metal barriers around the encampment and directed Jewish students to leave, according to a lawsuit.

“In the year 2024, in the United States of America, in the State of California, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith,” Judge Mark C. Scarsi wrote on Tuesday. “This fact is so unimaginable and so abhorrent to our constitutional guarantee of freedom that it bears repeating, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith. UCLA does not dispute this. Instead, UCLA claims that it has no responsibility to protect the religious freedom of its Jewish students because the exclusion was engineered by third-party protesters. But under constitutional principles, UCLA may not allow services to some students when UCLA knows that other students are excluded on religious grounds, regardless of who engineered the exclusion.”

While many lawsuits filed against universities have dealt with civil-rights issues, Scarsi’s UCLA ruling mentions the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“Here, UCLA made available certain of its programs, activities, and campus areas when certain students, including Plaintiffs, were excluded because of their genuinely held religious beliefs,” Scarsi wrote. He added that the plaintiffs had “put forward a colorable claim that UCLA’s acts violated their Free Exercise Clause rights.”

Scarsi noted in his ruling that the encampment on Royce Quad, which began on April 25, blocked access to several major campus buildings, including classrooms and a library.

Organizers of the encampment established checkpoints at which those who opposed the continued existence of Israel were given wristbands and allowed entry. Those who did not support the destruction of the Jewish state could not pass through.

Given that support for Israel’s existence is a core tenet of Jewish religious belief, the practice amounted to prohibiting Jews from entering campus buildings.

One plaintiff, a Jewish UCLA student, told the court he was unable to access the library “because he understood that traversing the encampment, which blocked entrance to the library, carried a risk of violence.” Another said she “decided not to traverse Royce Quad because of her knowledge that she would have to disavow her religious beliefs to do so.”

UCLA argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not demonstrate a likelihood that this would happen again. Scarsi, addressing that claim, wrote that it is “well settled that evidence of past instances of enforcement is important in a standing inquiry.” He also noted that, despite the university’s creation of a campus safety office, the fact that students violated UCLA’s protest rules three more times since the school changed policies is evidence enough that it may happen again.

The university’s administrators, Scarsi wrote, “are prohibited from offering any ordinarily available programs, activities, or campus areas to students if Defendants know the ordinarily available programs, activities, and campus areas are not fully and equally accessible to Jewish students.”

Becket Fund president Mark Rienzi, whose organization filed the suit alongside Clement & Murphy PLLC, said in a statement that the ruling — which represents the first injunction against an American university over an encampment — is a step toward ensuring Jews, like all Americans, have their constitutional rights protected.

“Shame on UCLA for letting antisemitic thugs terrorize Jews on campus,” Rienzi said. “Today’s ruling says that UCLA’s policy of helping antisemitic activists target Jews is not just morally wrong but a gross constitutional violation. UCLA should stop fighting the Constitution and start protecting Jews on campus.”

UCLA vice chancellor for strategic communications Mary Osako wrote in a statement that the university disagrees with Scarsi’s ruling, arguing that it would impede the UCLA administration’s ability to run its campus.

“UCLA is committed to fostering a campus culture where everyone feels welcome and free from intimidation, discrimination, and harassment,” Osako wrote. “The district court’s ruling is improper and would hamstring our ability to respond to events on the ground and to meet the needs of the Bruin community. We’re closely reviewing the Judge’s ruling and considering all our options moving forward.”