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

Fifteen-year injunction mandates equal access after lawsuit alleging religious discrimination during campus protests

In a consent judgment issued July 29, 2025, a federal court permanently barred UCLA officials from permitting the exclusion of Jewish students, faculty, or staff from any ordinarily available campus area, program, or activity, marking the conclusion of a lawsuit brought by four plaintiffs against the University of California system.

The ruling stems from the case Frankel v. Regents of the University of California, in which students and faculty alleged that UCLA failed to protect Jewish community members during a pro-Palestinian encampment protest in spring 2024. The lawsuit claimed that university officials knowingly allowed Jewish students and faculty to be excluded from parts of campus, violating constitutional and statutory rights including the Free Exercise Clause.

The court-approved consent judgment resolves all claims in the suit and enjoins UCLA from “knowingly allowing or facilitating the exclusion of Jewish students, faculty, and/or staff” from any university space or activity for the next fifteen years. It specifically includes exclusion based on “religious beliefs concerning the Jewish state of Israel” and mandates that services such as campus police and medical care remain equally accessible to Jewish individuals.

The order, issued by U.S. District Judge Mark C. Scarsi, is binding on current and future officials at UCLA and the University of California system. Although the judgment was entered by mutual consent and is not an admission of liability, it carries the force of a permanent injunction and cannot be appealed.

The controversy emerged after widespread campus protests over the Israel-Gaza conflict escalated at UCLA in April and May 2024. According to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the plaintiffs, Jewish students were physically barred from campus areas and faced threats and harassment while UCLA officials, in some cases, employed “de-escalation” strategies that tolerated exclusionary behavior. The university was accused of tolerating a “no-go zone” where access was dictated by political beliefs.

The lawsuit was filed in June 2024 in the Central District of California, naming not only the UC Regents but also individual administrators including UCLA Chancellor Gene Block and incoming President Julio Frenk. After months of litigation, both sides agreed to settle, entering into a confidential Settlement Agreement alongside the public consent judgment.

The injunction, which expires in July 2040 unless extended, allows UCLA to restrict access only when consistent with its general code of conduct. The court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms and to intervene if future disputes arise over compliance.

No further hearings are scheduled at this time, and the University of California has agreed not to appeal the judgment. If challenged, both parties have committed to defending its terms in court.

Commentary

This case is a rare example of a university agreeing to a legally binding court order rather than just settling quietly. By entering into a consent judgment and permanent injunction, UCLA is now under a federal court order—not just a private settlement—to make sure Jewish students, faculty, and staff are not excluded from campus spaces or activities. The university didn’t admit wrongdoing, but it did agree to strict terms that will last for fifteen years.

So what does this mean in practice? Going forward, if any protest or event results in Jewish students being kept out of an area, UCLA has a legal obligation to stop it. If it doesn’t, the plaintiffs or the court could enforce the injunction. This applies whether the exclusion is intentional or just a byproduct of how campus officials manage events. The judgment even includes religious beliefs about Israel as part of the protected class, which is an unusual and specific feature.

There’s also a safeguard: the university can still take action under its regular code of conduct—meaning it can remove anyone, including Jewish students, if there’s a rule violation. But it can’t allow situations where one group gets full access and another doesn’t just because of their beliefs.

This kind of legal action puts public institutions on notice. While protests and free speech are protected, they cannot cross the line into exclusion or discrimination based on religion. Because this injunction is backed by the court, any violation could trigger enforcement without starting a new lawsuit.

With the court keeping jurisdiction until at least 2040, this isn’t a short-term fix. UCLA will need to review its procedures carefully to avoid violating the order. And other universities may watch this closely to avoid similar legal exposure.