UCLA Student Judicial Board ruled against a complaint by the anti-Israel group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) contending that two members of the student council who went on sponsored trips to Israel had violated a conflict of interest "code of ethics" by participating in an anti-BDS vote. The 4-0 student court ruling (with two abstentions) means the student government vote made in February, which defeated a resolution calling on UCLA’s administration to divest from companies that do business in the disputed territories, stands.

SJP made the complaint in an attempt to overturn a 7-5 vote to defeat the divestment resolution by UCLA's student government because two of the voting members had taken sponsored trips to Israel. The two students Lauren Rogers and Sunny Singh, neither of whom is Jewish, traveled to Israel in 2013.  Rogers traveled with the ADL and Singh with the American Jewish Committee (AJC).

During the May 15 hearing where each side presented their case, the counsel for the two students called as witnesses ADL regional director Amanda Susskind and Robert Peckar, former national board chair of Project Interchange, the name of the AJC-sponsored Israel trip. Susskind and Pecker each testified their motivation to bring Singh and Rogers to Israel was not a quid pro quo. They had no expectation and made no request for either to vote against anti-Israel resolutions in the student government.

After the decision was announced Dean Schramm, President of AJC's Los Angeles Region said:

"We are pleased with the Judicial Board decision. However, we are deeply troubled that the UCLA Administration has abdicated its responsibility to its students. Ms. Rogers was subjected for months to a hurtful and threatening environment on the very campus she has served with distinction and to which she remains deeply committed. The Daily Bruin [student newspaper] gave Rogers high reviews for her performance in executing her duties as an elected member of the Student Council. While the members of the Judicial Board proved to be conscientious, Ms. Rogers should not have been hauled before it in the first place to answer to this baseless complaint and during mid-terms examinations no less.

The Judicial Board’s full opinion will be released by June 4.