Judge declines to dismiss UC Irvine protest-related charges against 3 defendants

Sean Emery, The Orange County Register on Mar 12, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

SANTA ANA, Calif. — An Orange County Superior Court judge on Thursday, March 12 decided against dismissing criminal charges against three people accused of failing to follow a police order to leave a pro-Palestinian protest at UC Irvine, leaving a jury to decide whether law enforcement’s actions on the campus were constitutional.

Attorneys for the three defendants argue that a police order for protesters to disperse from a campus encampment on May 15, 2024 was part of an effort by law enforcement and UCI leaders to shut down protester’s First Amendment rights, not a lawful response to violence or imminent danger.

The three defendant’s — Adel Shaker Hijazi, 41, Malik Alrefai, 25, and Jacob Andrew Hernandez, 33 — are scheduled for trial next week on misdemeanor failure to disperse charges.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Eric Scarbrough didn’t weigh in on the substance of the defense argument challenging the constitutionality of the police dispersal order. Instead, Scarbrough said that argument would likely be the heart of their trial and should be decided by a jury instead of a judge.

Around 50 people were charged in connection with the same UCI protest, with the vast majority accused of a misdemeanor count of failing to disperse when ordered by police. More than 40 of those defendants have already resolved their cases, most agreeing to taking part in a diversion program rather than face a conviction or time behind bars.

The 2024 UCI demonstration came amid a wave of protests at college campuses across the country related to the Israel-Hamas war.

A makeshift encampment erected by protesters stood for two weeks, beginning in late April 2024. Protester’s sought to force the university to divest from companies and instutiions with ties to Israel and weapons manufactures, to support an end to the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and to reinvest funds toward students and workers, among other demands.

The crowd had swelled to 500 or so people by the afternoon of May 15, when officers in riot gear from more than a dozen law enforcement agencies swept through the crowd following reports of a small barricading themselves into the Physical Sciences Lecture Hall, which was adjacent to the encampment.

UCI leaders argued they had exhausted all possible alternatives before resorting to police intervention. Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer, whose office filed the charges against the protesters, said at the time that “criminal activity (that) transcends peaceful assembly will not be tolerated.”

But the decisions to call in law enforcement and to file charges against protesters were condemned by civil rights groups and some faculty members as a politically-driven effort to silence pro-Palestinian activism on campus.

During Thursday’s hearing in a Santa Ana courtroom, Alternate Defender James Henshaw, Alrefai’s attorney, described the dispersal order his client is accused of failing to follow as a “sham” that was used to violate the First Amendment rights of the protesters.

There was no violence and no threat of imminent violence, the attorney added as he noted that police waited around two and a half hours from the first dispersal order to the arrests.

“They didn’t like the cause, they didn’t like the attention,” Henshaw said. “The police and UCI administrator’s wanted to shut this down.”

Deputy District Attorney Matthew Bradbury told the judge that there was evidence of violence or potential violence that led officers to issue the dispersal order and then to make arrests. The prosecutor told the judge that he had officers at the courthouse on Thursday ready to testify and body-worn camera footage on hand. But the officers did not ultimately take the stand on Thursday and the footage was not shown.

Along with arguing the police order was unconstitutional, Hernandez’s attorney is also arguing that Hernandez was covering the protest as a freelance reporter and therefore covered by state laws exempting journalists covering a protest from failure to disperse charges. The judge held off on weighing in on that argument on Thursday.

A jury trial for Hijazi, Alrefai and Hernandez is currently scheduled for next week.

_________