This decision comes early in the litigation. We still have to proceed to discovery in the case and prove the allegations in the complaint. But it's still a victory (albeit a preliminary one) for free speech on university campuses.

But just because some minor crime happens to be happening during a protest, you can't just shut down the whole thing.

Plus, does the government ever declare an unlawful assembly in a high-rise bank's office because bankers are committing white collar crime, then arrest the secretaries & janitors?

UCLA also said they didn't illegally arrest anyone b/c there was widespread "lodging" (a crime in CA) that justified declaring the Encampment an unlawful assembly. The judge said no.

BTW, an unlawful assembly is used if you can't tell who is committing crimes and who isn't in an unruly crowd.

UCLA defended its decision to end the Encampment because there was violence from "both sides," even though admin told student activists that it was for their own safety. But that's a classic "heckler's veto." If a mob attacks speakers, you can't shut down the speech. You have to shut down the mob!

The case challenged UCLA's decision to dismantle the Palestine Solidarity Encampment, arguing that it violated the plaintiffs' constitutional right to free expression and that the unlawful assembly declaration that caused the arrests of 200+ people at the Encampment was unconstitutional.