From Tuesday's decision by Judge Mark Scarsi (C.D. Cal.) in Weinberg v. Nat'l Students for Justice in Palestine; recall that the factual claims at this point are just allegations, and the court concludes only that, if the allegations are found to be true, plaintiffs could prevail:
According to the first amended complaint, in the wake of Hamas's October 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel and Israel's subsequent war in Gaza, a wave of protests and demonstrations swept the United States. Defendant NSJP, a "nationwide membership association," launched the Popular University for Gaza movement, an initiative which involved a "coordinated pressure campaign against university administrations and trustees" through the establishment of "autonomous zones on … university campuses."
One such protest was at UCLA. On April 25, 2024, less than one week after NSJP launched the Popular University for Gaza movement, UCLA's chapter of NSJP "in collaboration with UC Divest …, People's City Council, and a host of similar organizations," created a "fortified encampment" near UCLA's Royce Quad. According to an anonymous organizer, participants "amassed a large quantity of scrap wood and pallets to assemble barricades" and "erect[ed] a fortified camp out of the dust." Protestors formed specialized teams dedicated to providing logistical support, medical care, and security, as well as interfacing with the media. Organizers "limited entry [into the encampment] to only two zones, and established a complex check-in, wristband, and vouching system" enforced by "teams of armed members of the encampment and 'human phalanxes.'" On April 28, protestors expanded the encampment's perimeter to purportedly "use the walls of the adjacent buildings to [their] advantage" and amplify the encampment's disruptive effect to the broader campus.
The encampment and surrounding areas allegedly included a great deal of antisemitic imagery. (See, e.g., [Complaint] ¶ 98–100 (detailing antisemitic imagery on and around the encampment, including a "van festooned with Swastikas" parked outside the encampment "blaring antisemitic propaganda").) There were also numerous reports of violence and threats of violence directed at Jewish members of the community throughout the duration of the encampment.
Protestors also purportedly physically prevented Jews from entering the encampment. The following day, campus police announced their intent to clear the encampment. In response, protestors "collected gas masks, handed out goggles and helmets, and prepared to hold [their] ground." That night, when law enforcement attempted to clear the encampment, protestors and police clashed in a drawn-out confrontation. Eventually, in the early morning hours of May 2, law enforcement cleared the encampment. Organizers attempted to reestablish the encampment several times, including on May 6 and June 10. Each claims he was injured as a result of the encampment.
Professor Hoftman alleges he was assaulted by members of the encampment's security team on April 29 because he was Jewish. Mr. Weinberg claims that he avoided the Royce Quad area for the duration of the encampment after hearing reports of violence and threats of violence aimed at Jews. Prior to the encampment, Mr. Weinberg "often would walk through the Quad."
Mr. Tsives alleges that he would regularly show up to the encampment "dressed in a manner that made clear that he was Jewish, including wearing a visible Star of David necklace," and attempt to pass through one of the encampment's "checkpoints." Each time, he was either "physically blocked" at the point of entry by the encampment's security team or was "surrounded and forced out of the area by a 'human phalanx.'" Eventually, Mr. Tsives had to take a longer route to get to his classes. Rabbi Gurevich claims he was verbally threatened on June 10 "[w]hen the same core of organizers attempted to reestablish an encampment near the UCLA law school." A member of the new encampment's security team "slapped Rabbi Gurevich's phone out of his hand."
The court allowed plaintiffs' claims for civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) to proceed, concluding that plaintiffs had adequately alleged "anti-Jewish violence and exclusion":
