CAIR vs. UCLA — How Many Plaintiffs Are Actually Students?
Though framed as a campus civil rights case on behalf of students, the lawsuit includes a significant number of plaintiffs with no UCLA connection, raising concerns about underlying agendas
In March 2025, a coalition of 35 individuals filed a lawsuit against the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), the UC Board of Regents, and various law enforcement agencies. The claim: that UCLA failed to protect pro-Palestinian demonstrators during the spring 2024 pro-Hamas campus protests. Spearheaded by the Council on American-Islamic Relations California (CAIR-CA), the lawsuit alleges civil rights violations stemming from violent confrontations and law enforcement’s dismantling of the protest encampment.
But as the case garners public attention, so do the individuals behind it — and the organization driving the legal strategy. A closer look at the plaintiffs and CAIR-CA reveals a constellation of activist figures, ideological operators, and organizational controversies that complicate the lawsuit’s public framing.
Plaintiffs Unconnected to UCLA
Although the suit is publicly positioned and framed by CAIR as a defense of student demonstrators, a significant portion of the plaintiffs are not affiliated with UCLA at all.
Among the plaintiffs unaffiliated with UCLA are political organizers, self-described “abolitionists,” and figures with long-standing protest records well beyond campus activism. For example:
Lubna Hammad, a Palestinian lawyer with a background in the now Israel-designated terror group Defense for Children International–Palestine (according to her LinkedIn), was previously charged for refusing to disperse at a protest on another California campus. She also signed onto a letter by Samidoun, which was designated as a terror group by the U.S. in October 2024, in support of Osama Abu Irshaid, the executive director of American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) who has been linked to Hamas. Lubna co-founded the anti-Israel groups Adalah-NY and The New York Campaign for the Boycott of Israel: NYCBI
Gina Viola Peake, a former Los Angeles mayoral candidate, openly embraces anti-institutional rhetoric and has called to abolish the police. She has shared posts describing U.S. law as illegitimate. She is a member of the People’s City Council LA, an “abolitionist, anti-capitalist, and anti-imperialist collective” known for disrupting city council meetings and shutting down mayoral debates. The group expressed support for the Hamas-led October 7 attacks and backs “Palestinian resistance by any means necessary” — a phrase often used to justify violent activism. She has participated in events organized by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at Cal State LA and UCLA. A member of Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FJP) offered that Gina Viola Peake come to the UCLA encampment to help with “safety and de-escalation.”
Other plaintiffs, like writer Eric Wefald-Huang, acknowledged having no personal ties to UCLA. Wefald documented his participation in the encampment through a Substack, stating that although he felt out of place on a campus that “isn’t my own,” he was there “as a body to defend” it.
Then there’s Dolores Quintana, a local journalist whose online commentary has included posts such as “Hamas isn’t the one who’s been accused” of firing rockets. Another non-UCLA protestor is Thistle Boosinger, was documented distributing gear during the encampment.
While UCLA students and faculty are among the plaintiffs, the presence of so many external actors with long histories of ideological activism raises questions about whether this case stems from campus grievances or a broader coordinated strategy.
UCLA-Affiliated Plaintiffs
Bharat Venkat, a UCLA associate professor with a joint appointment spanning the Institute for Society & Genetics, the Department of History, and the Department of Anthropology, has repeatedly called for abolishing police institutions. “Defund and abolish the f**king police now,” he posted in 2020, followed by similar messages in 2024 describing the police as a “violent, racist force.” He has posted that the police “have no right to exist” and described the U.S. as a “carceral state.”
Graeme Blair, a UCLA associate professor of political science, has been a member and spokesperson for Faculty for Justice in Palestine. In October 2024, Blair and three other UCLA students and faculty members, sued UCLA for allegedly “repressing” pro-Palestine protests in the Spring of 2024.
Other plaintiffs appear to have entered the encampment not simply as protestors but with a preset motivation to potentially engage in legal action against UCLA. According to the legal complaint, James Degen and Isabella Lee, both UCLA law graduates who were students at the time of the protests, served as “volunteer legal observers” documenting the encampment. Both Degen and Lee were members of Law Students for Justice in Palestine.
Their preparation and evidence collection suggest that legal action may have been planned in parallel with the protests themselves. A dedicated lawsuit website, press kit, and coordinated PR campaign to accompany the lawsuit indicates a strategic campaign rather than an improvised legal defense.
CAIR’s Troubled Legacy
At the heart of this case is CAIR-California, a branch of the national Council on American-Islamic Relations. The group has long been dogged by controversy. In 2007, CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case, which involved money funneled to Hamas. While CAIR has denied wrongdoing, the FBI subsequently ended formal collaboration with the group, citing unresolved concerns.
CAIR’s Executive Director, Nihad Awad, made headlines for expressing support for the October 7 Hamas-led massacre, stating he was “happy to see” the attack. The comment provoked fierce backlash and reinforced longstanding criticisms that CAIR is less a civil rights organization than a political vehicle with extremist sympathies.
Now CAIR-CA finds itself facing serious questions — not just about ideology, but about money.
Federal Funding Irregularities
In March 2025, the watchdog group Intelligent Advocacy Network (IAN) filed a formal complaint to the Department of Justice alleging that CAIR-CA mishandled over $7.2 million in taxpayer-funded grants. The money, intended to fund legal services for refugees and immigrants, was allegedly funneled to CAIR’s Greater Los Angeles chapter, which is not a registered nonprofit eligible to receive such funds. CAIR-LA then redistributed portions of the grant to other CAIR-affiliated branches in San Diego and San Francisco.
IAN’s complaint also claims CAIR-CA failed to disclose these government grants on its IRS filings for 2022 and 2023, potentially violating nonprofit financial regulations. The organization’s federal accreditation to offer legal immigration services expired in February 2025. IAN has urged the Department of Justice not to renew it, citing financial misconduct, lack of transparency, and political extremism.
More Than Meets the Eye?
The UCLA lawsuit may still proceed on its legal merits, and the plaintiffs’ claims deserve full and fair consideration. However, the composition of the plaintiff group — which includes several individuals with no ties to UCLA — combined with CAIR’s controversial history and the coordinated rollout of legal and media materials, has led some observers to question whether this is a spontaneous student-led case or a more strategically planned legal campaign.
The full lawsuit can be accessed at this link.
A spokesperson for UCLA did not respond to request for comment.
Hilarious. Hey moron, the following conditions have not been met: the intent to commit genocide, as shown by specific directives and programs that demonstrate that intent, along with actions with no military value designed to fulfill that specific intent and directive. You know, like precisely what happened on October7.
Now you answer my question moron, how is this war in Gaza different than WW2 that saw the USA destroy entire cities (Dresden, Berlin) and kill 5 million German civilians, all in response to a single attack on a single naval base by non-Germans?
May each and every one be exposed.