The U.S. Department of Justice found on Thursday that the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law discriminated against white and Asian applicants between 2019 and 2025, violating the U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 decision barring race-conscious admissions.

What did the DOJ find?

In a six-page letter sent Thursday to a UCLA attorney, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon found that the law school had discriminated deliberately. The department asked the school to bring its admissions policies into compliance voluntarily.

The letter cited admissions data showing that, in 2025, Black applicants had seven times and Hispanic applicants two times the chance of admission compared to "otherwise equivalent" white applicants. The finding covers the six-year period from 2019 through 2025.

What is the legal standard?

The DOJ grounded its finding in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the 2023 Supreme Court decision that struck down race-conscious admissions at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina. The Trump administration reads that ruling to govern graduate and professional admissions as well.

Since early August, the DOJ has lodged similar accusations against the law schools at the University of California at Berkeley and Duke University. All three schools received demands for voluntary compliance.

How has UCLA responded?

UCLA Law issued a press release on Oct. 1 stating that the school "is committed to making admissions decisions in compliance with all applicable laws, including the California Constitution and Proposition 209, federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution."

Proposition 209, a 1996 California ballot initiative, already bars the University of California system from considering race, sex, or ethnicity in public employment, contracting, and admissions. The DOJ nonetheless alleges deliberate discrimination during the period under review.

What is the broader regulatory push?

The accusation forms part of a wider Trump administration campaign against diversity, equity, and inclusion requirements in legal education. Federal enforcers have moved against law schools, accreditors, and law firms in a series of coordinated actions.

Last month, the council of the American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar voted to repeal its DEI accreditation standard. Repeal followed an 86-page Department of Education report recommending removal of the council's accrediting powers.

An April 2025 executive order directed the Secretary of Education to assess whether to suspend or terminate the council as the government's official law school accreditor. The order cited unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion requirements as the basis for review.

What changes for admissions officers?

Practitioners advising law schools should expect heightened federal scrutiny of admissions data, including the demographic composition of admitted classes. The DOJ letter signals a willingness to demand voluntary compliance before initiating litigation.

Schools that retain race-conscious elements in holistic review now face concrete enforcement risk. Federal enforcers can bring actions under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bars recipients of federal funding from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

UCLA's situation illustrates that Proposition 209 does not by itself insulate a public law school from federal civil rights review. Schools should audit admissions criteria, train file readers, and document the race-neutral rationale for each decision point.