This post was updated Aug. 24 at 10:54 a.m.

A federal district court judge ruled Tuesday that UCLA cannot let pro-Palestine protesters obstruct Jewish students’ access to campus.

While several universities have faced lawsuits alleging antisemitism in the wake of spring pro-Palestine protests, the preliminary injunction issued against UCLA is the first time a federal court has ruled against a university’s response to protests. The ruling – given by U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi – follows a lawsuit filed by three Jewish UCLA students who claimed they faced antisemitic harassment and exclusion in the midst of the first Palestine solidarity encampment on campus, which was led by pro-Palestine organizations at UCLA, including Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace. 

[Related: Jewish students file lawsuit against UC Regents, UCLA admin for discrimination] 

The students alleged that the UCLA administration allowed pro-Palestine protesters to create a “Jew Exclusion Zone” in several areas inside and surrounding the encampment, including Dickson Plaza and Powell Library. Citing this behavior as evidence, attorneys for the students closed the lawsuit by stating that UCLA’s treatment of Jewish students violated the Equal Protection Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as freedom of speech. 

In the decision, Scarsi ruled that UCLA allowed pro-Palestine protesters to deny Jewish students access to certain areas on campus on the basis of their religion.

“Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith,” the ruling said. “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.”

UCLA challenged the lawsuit during oral arguments on July 29, according to the court filing. 

The university alleged that the plaintiffs’ argument lacked standing due to their failure to “allege an imminent likelihood of future injury.” Lawyers for UCLA further stated that the creation of the Office of Campus Safety and transfer of responsibility to the Emergency Operations Center make “future injury speculative at best.”

While UCLA concurred with the plaintiffs that Jewish students had faced discrimination on campus, attorneys for the university argued against the lawsuit’s legitimacy by claiming that the university itself was not directly responsible for this exclusion of the students.

However, Scarsi rejected this claim. He stated that UCLA contributed to the plaintiffs’ exclusion by continuing to offer opportunities to other, non-Jewish students while Jewish peers alleged they could not access the same opportunities, a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

“The injuries are not simply the exclusion of Plaintiffs,” the ruling said. “The injuries result when Plaintiffs are excluded from certain of UCLA’s ordinarily available programs, activities and campus areas and UCLA still provides those programs, activities, and campus areas to other students, knowing that Plaintiffs and students like them are excluded.”

Faculty for Justice in Palestine at UCLA filed an amicus brief Aug. 8 in opposition to the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.

In the brief, the group rejected the plaintiffs’ accusations that the encampment’s purpose was inherently antisemitic. Attorneys for FJP at UCLA also claimed that, in fact, pro-Palestine protesters’ First Amendment rights were violated during the April 30 counter-protester attacks on the encampment, the May 2 police sweep of the encampment and subsequent disciplinary hearings.

In the injunction, Scarsi referenced the amicus brief filed by FJP, stating that, if true, allegations made by the group regarding the mistreatment of pro-Palestine protesters could support claims of constitutional or civil rights violations. 

FJP also denied allegations that members of the encampment denied students access to the encampment based on their Jewish faith, citing that many members of the encampment were members of Jewish Voice for Peace at UCLA, a pro-Palestine Jewish advocacy group. Thomas Harvey, the attorney who filed the brief on behalf of FJP at UCLA, said the encampment took part in Jewish traditions, including a Seder and Shabbat. 

Harvey added that people were denied access to the encampment after new safety protocols were implemented following counter-protesters’ violent attacks on April 30. The brief stated that these new policies caused many people to be turned away, including people wearing keffiyehs, a headdress that is often recognized as a symbol of solidarity with Palestine.

“The encampment in no way discriminated against anyone on the basis of religion,” Harvey said. “It’s outrageous to believe that anyone within that encampment was intending to, trying to prevent people from coming in because they are Jewish.”

However, Scarsi stated in a footnote to the injunction that FJP’s amicus brief fell short of proving that religious exclusion did not occur in the encampment. He added that FJP’s brief failed to address the claim that the plaintiffs were excluded based on their support of Israel, a belief he described as “religious” itself. 

The injunction orders UC President Michael Drake, former Chancellor Gene Block, Interim Chancellor Darnell Hunt, among other UCLA administrators to prohibit ordinarily available programs from occurring on campus if they are aware that said opportunities are not equally accessible to Jewish students. 

It also forbids campus security from aiding in the obstruction of Jewish students from campus, after plaintiffs accused the university of “sanctioning segregation” by hiring security officers who discouraged Jewish students from attempting to enter areas blocked off by pro-Palestine protesters.

“Under the Court’s injunction, UCLA retains flexibility to administer the university,” the ruling said. “The injunction requires only that, if any part of UCLA’s ordinarily available programs, activities, and campus areas become unavailable to certain Jewish students, UCLA must stop providing those ordinarily available programs, activities, and campus areas to any students.” 

The ruling stated that issuing a preliminary injunction – which will begin Aug. 15 – was necessary to protect Jewish students from similar discrimination, should pro-Palestine protests continue in the fall. 

Attorneys for the university filed an appeal to the injunction Wednesday. In an emailed statement, Vice Chancellor for Strategic Communications Mary Osako said the preliminary injunction would hinder the university’s ability to function properly and meet students’ needs.

“UCLA is committed to fostering a campus culture where everyone feels welcome and free from intimidation, discrimination, and harassment,” she said in the statement. “The district court’s ruling would improperly hamstring our ability to respond to events on the ground and to meet the needs of the Bruin community.”

However, on Aug. 23, UCLA withdrew its appeal to the injunction, saying in a statement that its anti-discrimination policies and the UC’s new directives on protests stand in place of the appeal. UC President Michael Drake announced Tuesday that the University would no longer tolerate encampments, protests that block “free movement” or protesters using masks to shield their identities.

[Related: UC President Michael Drake bans encampments on all campuses]

“The University will forgo an appeal given UCLA’s own anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies and the current implementation of the directives issued by the UC Office of the President,” UCLA Media Relations said in the emailed statement. “We will abide by the injunction as this case makes its way through the courts.”

The preliminary injunction follows Scarsi’s July ruling on the lawsuit, which ordered UCLA and the plaintiffs to create a joint plan ensuring Jewish students’ equal access to campus after recent pro-Palestine protests on campus. 

Scarsi said UCLA had until Aug. 5 to submit a draft of the plan, which it must create in consultation with the litigating students. However, in the Tuesday decision, Scarsi claimed the plaintiffs and UCLA filed separate reports and could not make significant progress on a compromise.

 The July decision was the first federal court ruling related to this spring’s pro-Palestine protests at UCLA. While the ruling only targets UCLA, state lawmakers also recently ordered UC President Michael Drake to create a “systemwide framework” for free speech guidelines by Oct. 1 to receive certain funds allocated in the 2024 state budget.

The California State Legislature said in its budget report that it would withhold $25 million from the UC until it released these University-wide guidelines on acceptable forms of expression. 

[Related: How campuses across the UC negotiated with pro-Palestine protestors]

However, in a statement to the Daily Bruin, the UC Office of the President said the California Department of Finance had not yet taken any action to withhold funding from the UC, and would only reduce its budget by $25 million if the University failed to release the report by Oct. 1.

“The University is committed to working with campus chancellors, the Board of Regents, lawmakers, and others across our campus community to fully comply with the requirements set forth by the state legislature,” said Senior Director of Strategic and Critical Communications for the UC Office of the President Rachel Zaentz in an emailed statement. “We are dedicated to balancing our firm commitments to free speech, civility, and safety.”