From as we speak’s order by Choose Mark Scarsi (C.D. Cal.) in Frankel v. Regents:
Within the 12 months 2024, in america of America, within the State of California, within the Metropolis of Los Angeles, Jewish college students had been excluded from parts of the UCLA campus as a result of they refused to denounce their religion. This reality is so unimaginable and so abhorrent to our constitutional assure of spiritual freedom that it bears repeating, Jewish college students had been excluded from parts of the UCLA campus as a result of they refused to denounce their religion. UCLA doesn’t dispute this. As a substitute, UCLA claims that it has no duty to guard the non secular freedom of its Jewish college students as a result of the exclusion was engineered by third-party protesters. However underneath constitutional ideas, UCLA could not enable companies to some college students when UCLA is aware of that different college students are excluded on non secular grounds, no matter who engineered the exclusion….
On April 25, 2024, a gaggle of pro-Palestinian protesters occupied a portion of the UCLA campus often called Royce Quad and established an encampment. Royce Quad is a serious thoroughfare and gathering place and borders a number of campus buildings, together with Powell Library and Royce Corridor. The encampment was rimmed with plywood and steel obstacles. Protesters established checkpoints and required passersby to put on a selected wristband to cross them. Information reporting signifies that the encampment’s entrances had been guarded by protesters, and individuals who supported the existence of the state of Israel had been saved out of the encampment. Protesters related to the encampment “instantly interfered with instruction by blocking college students’ pathways to lecture rooms.”
Plaintiffs are three Jewish college students who assert they’ve a non secular obligation to assist the Jewish state of Israel. Previous to the protests, Plaintiff Frankel usually made use of Royce Quad. After protesters erected the encampment, Plaintiff Frankel stopped utilizing the Royce Quad as a result of he believed that he couldn’t traverse the encampment with out disavowing Israel. He additionally noticed protesters try to erect an encampment on the UCLA College of Legislation’s Shapiro courtyard on June 10, 2024.
Equally, Plaintiff Ghayoum was unable to entry Powell Library as a result of he understood that traversing the encampment, which blocked entrance to the library, carried a danger of violence. He additionally canceled plans to satisfy a pal at Ackerman Union after 4 protesters stopped him whereas he walked towards Janss Steps and repeatedly requested him if he had a wristband. Plaintiff Ghayoum additionally couldn’t research at Powell Library as a result of protesters from the encampment blocked his entry to the library.
And Plaintiff Shemuelian additionally determined to not traverse Royce Quad due to her information that she must disavow her non secular beliefs to take action. The encampment led UCLA to successfully make sure of its applications, actions, and campus areas accessible to different college students when UCLA knew that some Jewish college students, together with Plaintiffs, had been excluded primarily based of their genuinely held non secular beliefs.
The encampment continued for per week, till the early morning of Might 2, when UCLA directed the UCLA Police Division and outdoors legislation enforcement businesses to enter and clear the encampment. Since UCLA dismantled the encampment, protesters have continued to try to disrupt campus. For instance, on Might 6, protesters briefly occupied areas of the campus. And on Might 23, protesters established a brand new encampment, “erecting barricades, establishing fortifications and blocking entry to elements of the campus and buildings,” and “disrupting campus operations.”
Most not too long ago, on June 10, protesters “arrange an unauthorized and illegal encampment with tents, canopies, wood shields, and water-filled obstacles” on campus. These protesters “restricted entry to most of the people” and “disrupted close by ultimate exams.” Some college students “miss[ed] finals as a result of they had been blocked from getting into lecture rooms,” and others had been “evacuated within the center” of finals.
Primarily based on these details and different allegations, Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of their federal constitutional rights, together with violation of the Equal Safety Clause, the Free Speech Clause, and the Free Train Clause; claims for violations of their federal civil rights, together with violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, conspiracy to intervene with civil rights, and failure to forestall conspiracy; claims for violations of their state constitutional rights, together with violation of the California Equal Safety Clause and the California Free Train Clause; and claims for violations of their state civil rights, together with violations of part 220 of the California Training Code, the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, and the Bane Civil Rights Act….
The court docket rejected UCLA’s standing objections, partially reasoning:
UCLA argues that Plaintiffs lack standing as a result of they fail to allege an imminent chance of future harm…. UCLA contends that its remedial actions following the Royce Quad encampment make any “future harm speculative at finest.” These actions embrace the creation of a brand new Workplace of Campus Security and the switch of day-to-day duty for campus security to an Emergency Operations Heart. The adjustments, whereas commendable, don’t reduce the danger that Plaintiffs “will once more be wronged” by their exclusion from UCLA’s ordinarily accessible applications, actions, and campus areas primarily based on their sincerely held non secular beliefs beneath “a enough chance.”
First, since UCLA’s adjustments, protesters have violated UCLA’s protest guidelines a minimum of 3 times: on Might 6, Might 23, and June 10. Whereas these occasions could not have been as disruptive because the Royce Quad encampment, in response to a UCLA e mail, the June 10 occasions “disrupted ultimate exams,” quickly blocked off a number of areas of campus, and continued from 3:15 p.m. to the night. Equally, additionally in response to UCLA emails, the Might 6 and 23 occasions disrupted entry to a number of campus areas. Additional, any relative quiet on UCLA’s campus the previous few months is belied by the details that fewer individuals are on a college campus throughout the summer season and that the armed battle in Gaza continues.
Lastly, whereas UCLA’s give attention to security is compelling, UCLA has did not assuage the Plaintiffs’ issues that some Jewish college students could also be excluded from UCLA’s ordinarily accessible applications, actions, and campus areas primarily based on their sincerely held non secular beliefs ought to exclusionary encampments return. In response to those issues raised on the listening to, UCLA did “not state[] affirmatively that” they “won’t” present ordinarily accessible applications, actions, and campus areas to non-Jewish college students if protesters return and exclude Jewish college students.
It stays to be seen how efficient UCLA’s coverage adjustments might be with a full campus. Whereas the Might and June protests don’t seem to have resulted in the identical religious-belief-based exclusion because the prior encampment that offers rise to the Plaintiffs’ free train issues, the Court docket perceives an imminent danger that such exclusion will return within the fall with college students, workers, college, and non-UCLA group members. As such, provided that when authorities motion “implicates First Modification rights, the inquiry tilts dramatically towards a discovering of standing,” the Court docket finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently proven an imminent chance of future harm for standing functions….
And the court docket concluded that plaintiffs had been prone to succeed on their Free Train Clause declare (and thus declined to contemplate any of the opposite claims):
The Free Train Clause … “‘defend[s] non secular observers in opposition to unequal remedy’ and topics to the strictest scrutiny legal guidelines that concentrate on the non secular for ‘particular disabilities’ primarily based on their ‘non secular standing.'” “[A] State violates the Free Train Clause when it excludes non secular observers from in any other case accessible public advantages.” …
Right here, UCLA made accessible sure of its applications, actions, and campus areas when sure college students, together with Plaintiffs, had been excluded due to their genuinely held non secular beliefs. For instance, Plaintiff Frankel couldn’t stroll by Royce Quad as a result of getting into the encampment required disavowing the state of Israel. Equally, Plaintiff Ghayoum was prevented from getting into a campus space at a protester checkpoint, and Plaintiff Shemuelian couldn’t traverse Royce Quad, in contrast to different college students…. Plaintiffs’ exclusion from campus assets whereas different college students retained entry raises critical questions going to the deserves of their free train declare….
Plaintiffs have put ahead a colorable declare that UCLA’s acts violated their Free Train Clause rights. Additional, given the danger that protests will return within the fall that can once more limit sure Jewish college students’ entry to ordinarily accessible applications, actions, and campus areas, the Court docket finds that Plaintiffs are prone to endure an irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction…….
Underneath the Court docket’s injunction, UCLA retains flexibility to manage the college. Particularly, the injunction doesn’t mandate any particular insurance policies and procedures UCLA should put in place, nor does it dictate any particular acts UCLA should absorb response to campus protests. Fairly, the injunction requires solely that, if any a part of UCLA’s ordinarily accessible applications, actions, and campus areas grow to be unavailable to sure Jewish college students, UCLA should cease offering these ordinarily accessible applications, actions, and campus areas to any college students. How finest to make any unavailable applications, actions, and campus areas accessible once more is left to UCLA’s discretion….
The court docket due to this fact issued the next order:
[1.] Defendants Drake, Block, Hunt, Beck, Gordon, and Braziel (“Defendants”) are prohibited from providing any ordinarily accessible applications, actions, or campus areas to college students if Defendants know the ordinarily accessible applications, actions, or campus areas are usually not absolutely and equally accessible to Jewish college students.
[2.] Defendants are prohibited from knowingly permitting or facilitating the exclusion of Jewish college students from ordinarily accessible parts of UCLA’s applications, actions, and campus areas, whether or not because of a de-escalation technique or in any other case.
[3.] On or earlier than August 15, 2024, Defendants shall instruct Pupil Affairs Mitigator/Monitor (“SAM”) and any and all campus safety groups (together with with out limitation UCPD and UCLA Safety) that they aren’t to help or take part in any obstruction of entry for Jewish college students to ordinarily accessible applications, actions, and campus areas.
[4.] For functions of this order, all references to the exclusion of Jewish college students shall embrace exclusion of Jewish college students primarily based on non secular beliefs in regards to the Jewish state of Israel.
[5.] Nothing on this order prevents Defendants from excluding Jewish college students from ordinarily accessible applications, actions, and campus areas pursuant to UCLA code of conduct requirements relevant to all UCLA college students.
[6.] Absent a keep of this injunction by america Court docket of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, this preliminary injunction shall take impact on August 15, 2024, and stay in impact pending trial on this motion or additional order of this Court docket or america Court docket of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The court docket additionally famous:
[T]his case [is not] concerning the content material or viewpoints contained in any protest or counterprotest slogans or different expressive conduct, that are usually protected by the First Modification. See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 358 (2003) (“The hallmark of the safety of free speech is to permit ‘free commerce in concepts’—even concepts that the overwhelming majority of individuals may discover distasteful or discomforting.” (quoting Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting)); see additionally Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989) (“If there’s a bedrock precept underlying the First Modification, it’s that the federal government could not prohibit the expression of an thought just because society finds the concept itself offensive or unpleasant.”).
Amanda G. Dixon, Richard C. Osborne, Eric C. Rassbach, Mark L. Rienzi, Laura W. Slavis, and Jordan T. Varberg of the Becket Fund and Erin E. Murphy, Matthew David Rowen, and former U.S. Solicitor Basic Paul Clement (Clement & Murphy, LLC) characterize plaintiffs.