UCLA pleads for legal immunity for officials in ‘Jewish Exclusion Zone’ lawsuit.

What Jewish students and a professor suing UCLA see as the university’s facilitating a “Jewish exclusion zone” — an anti-Israel camp that called on Jews to denounce their historic homeland to march across campus — UCLA considers its measured approach last spring to safely halt disruptive protests against Israel’s response to the October 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks .

UCLA filed motions to dismiss the pleas and dismissal Tuesday on behalf of six current and former administrators, including President Michael Drake and former Chancellor Gene Block, arguing that new evidence introduced a month ago by students Yitzchok Frankel, Joshua Ghayoum, and Eden Shemuelian and professor Kamran Shamsa actually weakens their process.

The University of California, Los Angeles continues to reject the characterization of its actions by the plaintiffs and the judge nominated by President Trump to oversee the case, Mark Rienzi, who issued an ordinance in August which criticized the school for claiming it had “no responsibility to protect the religious freedom of its Jewish students because the exclusion was engineered by third-party protesters.”

He prohibited the taxpayer-funded university from providing services to some students when it “knows that other students are being excluded on religious grounds” and “knowingly permits or facilitates the exclusion of Jewish students,” by de-escalation “or otherwise.”

UCLA said the ultimately “unsustainable” de-escalation is the first step in a necessary “tiered strategy” of “actively seeking to avoid violence” before asking law enforcement to break up the camp and arrest the perpetrators, in memorandum of points and authorities Tuesday.

The school slammed the plaintiffs for seeking punitive damages against the administrators, saying that only one of their claims — Title VI national origin discrimination — does not require them to claim the administrators “intentionally discriminated” against them, and punitive damages do not. available under title VI.

“Even if the Court allows plaintiffs to proceed under constitutional and state law it holds that theoretical allow for punitive damages, such damages are legally unavailable,” not least because trustees enjoy sovereign and qualified immunities, the filing states.

UCLA is particularly upset with the plaintiffs for naming Assistant Vice Chancellor Rick Braziel as a defendant, given that he “wasn’t even a UCLA employee until after the Royce Quad camp was removed” and Rienzi has already ruled out post-camp protests as “religious”. -exclusion based on beliefs.”

Plaintiffs attorneys at the Religious Freedom Law Firm Becket accused UCLA of submission to contradict public statements by the regents of the University of California in response to those of the university Report of the Task Force on Combating Anti-Semitism and Israeli Biaswhich urged UCLA to “commit to remedy rather than fight the case” in court.

“UCLA administration’s latest effort to drop claims is appalling,” Becket said on X. “The school should stop avoiding blame for its despicable behavior and acknowledge its role in fanning the flames of anti-Semitism against its own students and faculty.”

The amended complaint disputed UCLA’s argument that the spring camp was a “single incident,” detailing “at least three more occupations and camps” that disrupted spring finals, took over buildings and harassed a campus rabbi.

Activists organized a “Week of Rage” to mark the one-year anniversary of the October 2023 terrorist attack, “during which they repeatedly violated campus protest rules with impunity, including setting up a new camp on October 21.” , in the October 22 file. said.

It’s not the only lawsuit against UCLA related to the so-called Jewish exclusion zone.

The Young America Foundation sued in Octoberalleging viewpoint discrimination as UCLA threw repeated blockades at its campus chapter event with Director of Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer this spring while supposedly protecting the camp.

Some elite universities have suffered severe backlash for their supposed respect for anti-Israel protests or personal participation.

Following a the damning task force report on violence against Jewish students and their exclusion from parts of campus by anti-Israel protesters, Columbia’s donations are down on the annual “Day of Giving” in October.

Ivy League school removed three deans who exchanged text messages mocking a discussion on antisemitism, but also banned a pro-Israel professor from campus for allegedly harassing officials on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks.

UCLA’s memorandum on Tuesday sought to split the difference with Judge Rienzi, saying he could grant his motions while maintaining a “virtually identical” order and urging him to protect the officials as “government employees who performed duties based on a reasonable understanding of applicable law. .”

UC administrators “worked tirelessly over the past year to maintain a safe and inclusive environment for the entire campus community” in response to disruptive protests that tested its anti-discrimination and First Amendment obligations, the filing said.

While plaintiffs’ amended complaint “omits many details about UCLA’s effort to respond to the Royce Quad encampment … even without this context, plaintiffs’ allegations reflect that UCLA sought to remove the encampment and minimize the risk of violent clashes with counterprotesters.” . the university said, describing specific actions.

Plaintiffs acknowledge “these efforts succeeded,” including an aborted occupation of the Kerckhoff Patio after administrators threatened arrest and school discipline, and the failure of any subsequent disruptions to last “more than a few hours” or lock out Jewish students or faculty from any part of campus, according to the file.

Regardless of the fact that Judge Rienzi framed his actions as maintaining “access” to the criminals who blocked the Jews, through official state action, UCLA’s failure to “forcefully remove the protesters sooner than UCLA actually did” does not create liability under the 14th Amendment, he argued.

The actions of the protesters cannot be attributed to the officials “simply because they did not immediately use physical force” to remove them. “There will always be a period – even if only a few hours – before law enforcement can remove the protesters,” and that in itself cannot create a “benefit” for the criminals, more than 200 of whom were eventually arrested.

“At the very least, the Court’s new view of the state action doctrine” — that de-escalation of protests violates the law — “was not clearly established prior to its preliminary injunction decision, which independently entitles” administrators to qualified immunity, the ruling said. file. .

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals held 23 years ago in a case regarding The “arrest, extradition and wrongful imprisonment” of a mentally disabled manthat a “facially neutral (policy) of inaction” cannot violate equal protection “even if” it has a “discriminatory impact” on a protected class, the filing says:

“There was no plan to respond to a protest camp,” and the amended complaint lists several actions taken by UCLA to “minimize tension and break up the camp” in the context of “tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving” situations — those more appropriate for qualified immunity, according to the university.

Even the plaintiffs acknowledge “UCLA leaders have consistently condemned anti-Semitic behavior … and sought to make the campus more welcoming to members of the Jewish community,” and Rienzi himself emphasized “none of us believe UCLA wants to exclude Jewish students.” .