Frankel v. Regents of the University of California

Q: What court decided Regents of the University of California?

Frankel v. Regents of the University of California was decided by the U.S. District Court in 2025.

Q: Who won Regents of the University of California?

The outcome in Frankel v. Regents of the University of California was: Settled. UCLA violated the Free Exercise Clause by knowingly allowing or facilitating the exclusion of Jewish students and faculty from campus areas during protests.

Q: What legal issues are involved in Regents of the University of California?

Frankel v. Regents of the University of California involves the following religious liberty issues: Education, Free Exercise.

UCLA violated the Free Exercise Clause by knowingly allowing or facilitating the exclusion of Jewish students and faculty from campus areas during protests.

ReligiousLiberty.TV

February 26, 2026

0 min read

Year: 2025 Court: U.S. District Court Outcome: Settled

Education Free Exercise

Holding: UCLA violated the Free Exercise Clause by knowingly allowing or facilitating the exclusion of Jewish students and faculty from campus areas during protests.

Uses AI to generate a structured summary. Takes ~10 seconds.

Official Documents

No official documents found yet.

Coverage on ReligiousLiberty.TV

📎 Document links found in our articles: 📄 opinion

University of California Settles Lawsuit with Jewish Students, Agrees to Court-Enforced Protections July 31, 2025

Primary coverage

Frankel v. Regents of the University of California is a Education case decided by the U.S. District Court in 2025. The court held that uCLA violated the Free Exercise Clause by knowingly allowing or facilitating the exclusion of Jewish students and faculty from campus areas during protests. The case resulted in a Settled outcome.

1
Mahmoud v. Taylor606 U.S. 522 (2025)
3
U.S. Supreme Court
Parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and medical care of their children without state interference.
📄 Opinion available
2
United States v. Don Lemon(2026)
2
U.S. District Court
Pending
The government indicted Don Lemon under the FACE Act for alleged coordination in disrupting religious worship, though judges…
3
Groff v. DeJoy600 U.S. 447 (2023)
2
U.S. Supreme Court
Employers cannot deny religious accommodation to workers unless it causes substantial increased costs or burdens on business operations.
📄 Opinion available
4
Bill 21 (Supreme Court of Canada Appeal)(2026)
2
U.S. Supreme Court
Pending
5
Troogstad v. City of Chicago25-1575 (2025)
2
Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how a COVID-19 vaccine mandate burdened their specific religious practices under the Free Exercise…
📄 Opinion available
6
Wailes v. Jefferson County Public Schools(2025)
2
Remanded
District court dismissal of parents' challenge to school's policy of assigning students to overnight accommodations based on gender…
📄 Opinion available
7
Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Washington v. Nick Brown24-7246 (2026)
2
The First Amendment's church autonomy doctrine extends beyond the ministerial exception to protect a religious organization's decision to…
📄 Opinion available
8
Gilfillan v. City of Philadelphia637 F.2d 924 (1980)
2
Philadelphia violated the Establishment Clause by spending taxpayer funds to build a platform for a papal mass and…
📄 Opinion available
9
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.573 U.S. 682 (2014)
2
U.S. Supreme Court
Religious liberty protections under RFRA apply to closely held for-profit corporations.
📄 Opinion available
10
We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. State of Connecticut Department of EducationHHD-CV-22-6152413-S (2025)
2
State Appellate Court
The court dismissed state constitutional claims based on sovereign immunity but allowed a statutory religious liberty claim under…