The administrations Department of Justice has determined that the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law systematically discriminated against white and Asian applicants by using race as a decisive factor in admissions decisions for years.
According to Western Journal, the DOJs Civil Rights Division concluded that UCLA Laws practices ran afoul of the Supreme Courts 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which explicitly bars race-based admissions schemes. The school was also found to be in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a cornerstone federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in programs receiving federal funds.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who leads the Civil Rights Division, condemned the schools approach in stark terms, arguing that UCLA had effectively created a racially stratified admissions regime. Like many of its peer institutions, UCLA Law School runs a two-tiered admissions system whose academic bar for acceptance shifts up or down depending on the color of your skin, Dhillon said, underscoring the extent to which ideology has supplanted merit in elite legal education.
Dhillon further emphasized that the Supreme Courts ruling leaves no room for the kind of racial engineering long favored by progressive administrators in higher education. The use of race as a thumb on the scale that helps or disadvantages any student is illegal, she added. The Department will continue to enforce equal treatment under the law everywhere including in our nations law schools.
Investigators found that UCLA Laws application process was deliberately structured to draw out racial information from candidates in ways that could be used to tilt outcomes. The DOJ report noted that the application included personal statements and essay prompts, which are designed to elicit information about race, a tactic that appears aimed at circumventing the Supreme Courts explicit ban on race-conscious admissions.
The probe also revealed that admissions staff did more than passively receive such information; they actively coached some applicants on how to signal their race in supposedly race-neutral sections. Officials told certain candidates how to reveal their race in these sections of the application, including during race-based recruitment efforts, such as an annual Diversity Admissions Open House, highlighting a coordinated effort to preserve racial preferences under a different guise.
Data reviewed by the DOJ showed that white and Asian applicants with LSAT scores comparable to those of black and Hispanic applicants were routinely passed over in favor of the latter. In other words, similarly qualified candidates were treated differently based solely on skin color, a practice conservatives have long warned is both unconstitutional and corrosive to public trust in institutions.
The disparities were especially stark in recent admission cycles, where combined statistics from 2024 and 2025 revealed that half of the admitted black applicants had LSAT scores that were at or below 90 percent of the admitted white applicants. Such figures suggest that academic standards were effectively lowered for some groups while raised for others, undermining the principle of equal opportunity and merit-based advancement.
UCLA School of Law, for its part, defended its approach in a statement provided to the Associated Press, insisting that its process is both fair and rigorous. Students are admitted through a comprehensive, merit-based review process that considers each applicants achievements and experiences, the school said, attempting to reconcile its rhetoric of merit with the DOJs findings of race-driven decision-making.
The institution doubled down on its position, signaling no immediate willingness to acknowledge wrongdoing or overhaul its admissions regime. We are confident in our process, the statement added, a claim likely to face intense scrutiny as the federal investigation continues and as public patience with identity-based preferences wears thin.
The Justice Department stressed that UCLAs acceptance of federal funds comes with clear legal obligations that cannot be brushed aside in the name of diversity or progressive social engineering. The department warned that it is prepared to escalate if necessary, noting that UCLA must comply with non-discrimination laws to continue receiving taxpayer dollars and that litigation remains firmly on the table.
The Department will continue to investigate their compliance with Title VI, as interpreted by SFFAs prohibition on race-conscious admissions, the release concluded, signaling that UCLA is unlikely to be the last elite institution facing such scrutiny. Where a violation has been found, the Department will engage in settlement negotiations to ensure the schools admissions practices are brought into compliance. If those efforts fail, the Department will file suit.
For many Americans who believe that law schools should model fidelity to the Constitution rather than ideological fads, the case raises a fundamental question: will powerful universities finally be held to the same colorblind standard imposed on everyone else. With the DOJ now openly challenging UCLA Laws race-based preferences, the outcome could reshape not only one schools admissions policies but the broader higher-education establishment that has long treated equity as a license to discriminate.
Login