The short version
- The Department of Justice alleges UCLA Law School discriminated against white and Asian applicants by favoring Black and Hispanic students in recent admission cycles.
- University officials deny the accusations, asserting that their admissions process is merit-based and fully compliant with federal laws prohibiting racial preferences.
- This accusation is part of a wider federal campaign targeting California universities, following similar allegations against UC Berkeley and UC San Diego medical schools.
The Department of Justice has formally accused the University of California, Los Angeles law school of violating federal law by considering race in its student admissions process. The announcement marks a significant escalation in the Trump administration’s ongoing campaign to scrutinize how colleges select their incoming classes. Federal officials stated that the law school engaged in illegal discrimination against white and Asian American applicants while providing preferential treatment to Black and Hispanic candidates during the 2023, 2024, and 2025 admission cycles.
According to the justice department’s findings, the institution operated a two-tiered admissions system where academic standards varied based on an applicant’s race. The department’s analysis highlighted disparities in standardized test scores, noting that admitted Black applicants had lower mean LSAT scores compared to their white counterparts. Officials also alleged that admissions staff actively guided applicants during recruitment events, such as a Diversity Admissions Open House, on how to disclose their racial identity within personal essays.
Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the justice department’s civil rights division, characterized the university’s practices as discriminatory in a news release. He asserted that the school maintained an admissions framework where the academic threshold for acceptance shifted depending on skin color. This characterization aligns with the administration’s broader argument that many peer institutions continue to use proxies, such as personal statements, to consider race despite legal prohibitions.
The University of California system has firmly rejected these allegations. In a public statement, UCLA Law School denied any wrongdoing and emphasized its commitment to adhering to all applicable laws. The university described its admissions methodology as comprehensive and merit-based, focusing on individual achievements and experiences rather than racial categories. Officials expressed confidence in their review process, asserting that it does not violate the legal standards established by recent judicial rulings.
These accusations occur against the backdrop of a 2023 Supreme Court decision that banned affirmative action in college admissions. While the ruling prohibited explicit racial preferences, it allowed colleges to consider how an applicant’s background might contribute to broader characteristics like resilience or perspective. The current administration argues that many universities are circumventing this ban by using indirect methods to factor race into decisions, which conservatives view as illegal discrimination.
The scrutiny of UCLA Law is not isolated but part of a coordinated federal effort targeting higher education in California. Earlier this year, the Trump administration leveled similar accusations against the UC Berkeley School of Law and the medical school at the University of California, San Diego. These institutions were also accused of illegally discriminating against white and Asian applicants. The pattern suggests a systematic review of admissions practices across major public universities in the state.
The federal government’s ability to investigate these claims has faced legal challenges. Earlier this year, the administration attempted to compel higher education institutions to release detailed data regarding the race and sex of applicants, admitted students, and enrolled populations. This data collection was intended to facilitate investigations into potential racial discrimination in admissions processes across the country.
However, a federal judge halted that specific data collection effort in August after seventeen Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit. The court granted a preliminary injunction, ruling that while the federal government likely had the authority to collect such data, the rollout was executed in a rushed and chaotic manner. The states argued that the demand risked invading student privacy and could lead to baseless investigations of academic institutions.
The legal dispute highlights tensions between federal oversight and state protections for educational autonomy. State officials contended that universities were not given sufficient time to gather the requested information securely. They also raised concerns about the potential for misuse of sensitive demographic data. As the administration continues its scrutiny, the outcome of these legal battles will likely shape how colleges navigate admissions policies in the coming years.
For now, UCLA Law School maintains that its practices are lawful and merit-focused. The university’s denial underscores the difficulty of proving indirect discrimination without clear evidence of intent. As the justice department proceeds with its allegations, the case may set important precedents for how federal authorities interpret and enforce bans on racial considerations in higher education admissions.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian US↗UCLA law school accused by justice department of illegally using race in admissions
