UC Davis Law Student Association suspended after calls to boycott Israeli-connected businesses
DAVIS — UC Davis is suspending its Law Student Association (LSA) and taking over the funds from student fees after the association's calls for a boycott of Israeli-connected businesses.
A university spokesperson said this type of suspension is done "infrequently." The university released a statement that said, in part:
The student association voted on a resolution to join the Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions movement and to "not approve funding requests for events with speakers who represent the Israeli government, regardless of their nationality, religion, or ethnic origin."
Constitutional law expert and UC Davis Professor Vikram Amar said that UC Davis' decision to suspend the LSA follows U.S. law, which requires public university student organizations to fund activities on a "viewpoint-neutral basis."
"This organization has violated campus rules as well as the U.S. Constitution," Professor Amar said. "It seems pretty clear to me that this is not a viewpoint-neutral policy but rather a policy that disfavors organizations associated with people who have sympathy or support of Israel."
The suspension comes after UC and CSU campuses responded to mass Israeli and Palestinian protests last year by re-enforcing rules banning protests that include encampments, structures and masks.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Sacramento has been monitoring the UC Davis Law Student Association suspension.
"It's a little ironic that it's a law school and, you know, law students at Davis," CAIR Sacramento executive director Reshad Noorzay said. "But, unfortunately, it's been disappointing how the UC system has responded to students standing up for their First Amendment rights."
The funds seized from the student law school association are now controlled by law school administrators. The student association remains suspended indefinitely.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump orders Marines to Los Angeles as protests escalate over immigration raids, demonstrating the president's power to deploy troops on US soil
President Donald Trump ordered a contingent of about 700 Marines to Los Angeles on June 9, 2025, in response to what Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth described as 'increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings.' This dramatic escalation of the military presence in Los Angeles followed Trump's June 7 order to send about 2,000 National Guard troops into the city. Both measures were Trump's response to what he called 'numerous incidents of violence and disorder' by those protesting his administration's actions rounding up and deporting immigrants in the Los Angeles area. State and local officials decried Trump's actions, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom calling the move 'purposefully inflammatory,' as well as 'an illegal act.' California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to block its deployment of National Guard members. Other critics of Trump's actions said the scale and character of the protests did not warrant such extreme measures. Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with William C. Banks, a scholar of the role of the military in domestic affairs, to understand the extent of a president's power to send American troops to Los Angeles. Can American troops be used inside the country? They can, but it is an extraordinary exercise of authority to use troops domestically. It has rarely been done in the U.S. as a way of responding to a civil disturbance. Congress has delegated that authority of deploying American troops domestically to the president in limited circumstances. Otherwise, the only authority is exercised by governors, who have control of the National Guard. Why was American law set up this way? The U.S. was founded in response to heavy-handed English use of the military by King George to interfere with the civil liberties and rights of the colonists in the lead-up to the American Revolution. So, when the founders created the U.S. Constitution, they were very careful to insert roadblocks that would make it difficult for the government to use troops to carry out its own programs. The country's framers also understood there might be occasions when it would be necessary to use the military domestically. They did a couple of things to control the exercise of military authority. One was to ensure that the commander in chief of the military was a civilian. Second, they gave the authority to call up the National Guard, what was known as the 'militia' in those days, to Congress, not to the president, in order to create a separation of powers. Under what circumstances can the president deploy troops to an American city? Under the Insurrection Act, which was signed into law in 1807, a president can deploy troops during what is called an insurrection, simply meaning when all hell breaks loose. The president can decide that it is 'impracticable,' according to the Insurrection Act, to enforce the laws of the U.S. in a given city, and he may call forth the military or the National Guard to help restore law and order. In order to invoke the Insurrection Act, the president first has to make a proclamation to those he calls the insurrectionists to cease and desist. Unless the alleged insurrectionists immediately do what the president says, the president then has the authority to deploy forces. Trump has repeatedly called the protesters in Los Angeles 'insurrectionists,' but has also walked those remarks back and hasn't made any kind of formal proclamation yet. When Trump ordered California's National Guard members to deploy to Los Angeles on June 7, he did so on a narrow statutory authority to protect federal buildings, properties and personnel that were trying to enforce immigration laws. What is the Posse Comitatus Act and how does it apply to the current situation in Los Angeles? Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878. This act's name derives from an arcane Latin term that means 'the power of the county.' This law establishes a legal presumption in the U.S. that the military, if it is deployed domestically, should not engage in law enforcement. This act is an important part of American law. It means that the military and National Guard are trained on this principle that they are not to engage in domestic law enforcement activities. Those are reserved for police, sheriffs and marshals. Invoking the Insurrection Act is the principal exception to this law. So the Insurrection Act allows the military to act as law enforcement officials? That's right. By invoking the Insurrection Act the military could act as cops and have the right to arrest, investigate and detain civilians, with only the Constitution as a check on its power. This is not a situation that California National Guard members have trained for. They are trained to fight actual wildfires, but this is something entirely different. Are there any legal roadblocks that could curb the president's authority to send U.S. troops to Los Angeles? The short answer to this question is no. Can state governors or other elected officials prevent U.S. troops from being sent to their cities? In many ways that is the main question right now. California's governor, Gavin Newsom, has said that the state doen't need these military forces. Newsom's June 9 lawsuit against the Trump administration argues that the authority over the National Guard is reserved for states, 'unless the State requests or consents to federal control.' That has not happened in this case. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: William C. Banks, Syracuse University Read more: From Kent State to Los Angeles, using armed forces to police civilians is a high-risk strategy Debates over presidential power to suspend habeas corpus resurface in Trump administration In a new era of campus upheaval, the 1970 Kent State shootings show the danger of deploying troops to crush legal protests William C. Banks does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
75 Democrats Express 'Gratitude' to ICE in Antisemitism Vote Amid LA Unrest
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Seventy-five Democrats broke ranks on Monday, joining Republicans in voting for a House resolution condemning antisemitism and expressing "gratitude" for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other law enforcement personnel. Why It Matters Monday's vote comes as Los Angeles is reeling from days of political unrest after ICE raided several downtown city neighborhoods and arrested more than 50 people. The arrests are part of the Trump administration's broader crackdown on undocumented migrants, which has also swept up people who are legally permitted to be in the United States. President Donald Trump has deployed 4,000 National Guard troops to L.A. since the protests started unfolding and has also mobilized 700 Marines to respond if the strife escalates. What To Know Monday's resolution condemned this month's antisemitic attack in Boulder, Colorado, in which the suspect, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, faces 118 criminal charges, accused of targeting a march calling for the return of Israeli hostages in Gaza. The resolution also "affirms that free and open communication between State and local law enforcement and their Federal counterparts remains the bedrock of public safety and is necessary in preventing terrorist attacks; and expresses gratitude to law enforcement officers, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, for protecting the homeland." Of the 212 Democrats in the House, 113 voted against the resolution, which was introduced by Republican Representative Gabe Evans. Seventy-five Democrats voted in favor of the measure, including Representative Joe Neguse, who represents the district where the Boulder attack occurred. Six lawmakers—five Democrats and one Republican—voted "present." This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
113 House Dems vote against GOP resolution to condemn Boulder attack on pro-Israel activists
More than 100 Democrats voted against a House GOP-led resolution to condemn the accused terror attack in Boulder, Colorado. It passed 280-113, with 75 Democrats joining Republicans to vote for the bill. Six lawmakers, five Democrats and one Republican, voted "present." The legislation was introduced by Rep. Gabe Evans, R-Colo., last week in response to the attack. But Democrat lawmakers made clear they were opposed to language in the resolution that they felt was politically charged. In addition to condemning the attack, Evans' resolution also appeared to rebuke blue-leaning sanctuary jurisdictions that were at odds with federal immigration authorities, and he condemned illegal immigrants who overstay their visas as well. A second bill, led by Reps. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., and Joe Neguse, D-Colo., more broadly condemned the rise in antisemitic attacks in the U.S. That legislation netted much wider bipartisan support, passing 400-0, with just two lawmakers voting "present." House Gop Targets Another Dem Official Accused Of Blocking Ice Amid Delaney Hall Fallout Read On The Fox News App But Evans' resolution more specifically noted that the case of terror suspect Mohammed Sabry Soliman, who overstayed a tourist visa and a subsequent work authorization, "demonstrates the dangers of not removing from the country aliens who fail to comply with the terms of their visas." The Egyptian national is facing federal charges after allegedly attempting to set fire to peaceful demonstrators who were protesting Hamas' continued possession of Israeli hostages in Gaza. The Trump administration has vowed that he and his family will be deported from the U.S. Evans' resolution also "affirms that free and open communication between State and local law enforcement and their Federal counterparts remains the bedrock of public safety and is necessary in preventing terrorist attacks" and it "expresses gratitude to law enforcement officers, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, for protecting the homeland." It comes as Democrat-controlled cities like Los Angeles and Nashville, Tennessee, have seen their leaders criticize the Trump administration's ICE crackdown. The Trump administration's handling of anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles has spurred an outpouring of scorn from Democrat officials, particularly the decision to send National Guard troops in to break up the demonstrations. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., criticized Evans' resolution in comments to reporters on Monday. "Who is this guy? He's not seriously concerned with combating antisemitism in America. This is not a serious effort," Jeffries said. "Antisemitism is a scourge on America. It shouldn't be weaponized politically." Jeffries also called Evans "a joke." Evans responded on X, "I served our nation in uniform in the Middle East, as a cop in Colorado, & now as a Congressman. This wildly offensive sentiment from Democrat's Leader is why antisemitism persists. The Left is unserious about finding real solutions." Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., who is Jewish, also criticized Evans' resolution. Meet The Trump-picked Lawmakers Giving Speaker Johnson A Full House Gop Conference "You weren't here, Mr. Evans, last term, but there were about 10 antisemitism resolutions that effectively said the same thing solely to score political points. We Jews are sick and tired of being used as pawns," Goldman said during debate on the bill. But Van Drew, who is leading a bipartisan resolution that similarly condemns antisemitism but does not discuss immigration, defended Evans' measure. "Yes, it is different than mine. Mine focused purely on antisemitism here in the world. But he brings up a valid point not only for Jews, but for many innocent victims. Whether it was Laken Riley, whether it was the women that were raped, the women and men that were killed, those that were beaten, those that were hurt, who were in law enforcement. Illegal immigration is not a good thing," Van Drew said. The two lawmakers who voted "present" on Van Drew's resolution were Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. Greene wrote on X after the vote, "Antisemitic hate crimes are wrong, but so are all hate crimes. Yet Congress never votes on hate crimes committed against white people, Christians, men, the homeless, or countless others. Tonight, the House passed two more antisemitism-related resolutions, the 20th and 21st I've voted on since taking office. Meanwhile, Americans from every background are being murdered — even in the womb — and Congress stays silent."Original article source: 113 House Dems vote against GOP resolution to condemn Boulder attack on pro-Israel activists
