Justice Department Alleges UC Berkeley Law Discriminated Against White and Asian Applicants

Federal funding for higher education is strictly contingent upon compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in any program receiving taxpayer dollars. That condition is no longer being met at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, according to a joint investigation by the Department of Justice and the Department of Education. On Wednesday, federal investigators issued a formal findings letter alleging the institution intentionally discriminated against white and Asian American applicants during recent admissions cycles.[1]

The inquiry, which examined internal admissions data and evaluator notes, concluded that Berkeley Law continued to use race as a determining factor despite the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions. According to the Justice Department, the school's admissions officers systematically penalized certain demographics to engineer a specific racial balance in the incoming class.[1][3]

The federal review analyzed thousands of application files from the 2024 and 2025 admissions cycles, identifying statistical anomalies where white and Asian American candidates with higher median LSAT scores and undergraduate grade point averages were rejected at disproportionate rates compared to other applicants. The initial reports and the 14-page findings letter do not contain direct quotations from university officials or federal prosecutors regarding the specific statistical thresholds, but they outline a structural mechanism of exclusion.[1][2]

Investigators focused on the law school's holistic review process, which was ostensibly redesigned following the federal affirmative action ban. The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights found that application readers were instructed to consider an applicant's background in ways that functioned as a proxy for race. The findings allege that this practice directly violates the Supreme Court's mandate that universities may only consider race if it is tied to an applicant's individual experiences, rather than used as a categorical advantage.

UC Berkeley officials have strongly denied the allegations through institutional statements. While the university has not yet released a comprehensive rebuttal to the specific data points cited by the two federal agencies, administrators maintain that their admissions policies are entirely lawful and rely on race-neutral criteria to build a diverse cohort. The law school has historically operated under California's Proposition 209, a 1996 state constitutional amendment that already banned affirmative action in public institutions long before the federal ruling.

The enforcement action arrives amid a broader political push by the Trump administration to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion frameworks across higher education. Conservative legal groups have been filing a wave of civil rights complaints against universities, prompting the federal government to open compliance reviews. Berkeley Law, consistently ranked among the top 10 law schools in the country, presents a high-profile target for federal prosecutors looking to establish a precedent.[3]

At stake is the university's access to federal financial assistance. Institutions found in violation of Title VI risk losing millions of dollars in federal grants and student loan eligibility if they fail to reach a resolution agreement with the government. The Justice Department has given UC Berkeley 30 days to respond to the findings and negotiate a compliance plan before it initiates formal enforcement proceedings, which could include a federal lawsuit.[1][2]

The outcome of this standoff will likely dictate how other elite universities structure their admissions rubrics in the post-affirmative action landscape. If the Justice Department successfully forces Berkeley Law to overhaul its holistic review process, universities nationwide will face intense pressure to eliminate any proxy metrics that yield demographic balancing. The immediate next step rests with the UC Board of Regents, who must decide whether to litigate the findings in federal court or sign a binding consent decree.[3]