The school refused to meaningfully change its admission policies after the Supreme Court ruled against affirmative action, according to the DOJ.
A Justice Department investigation concluded that the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) law school violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by intentionally discriminating against white and Asian applicants when admitting the 2023, 2024, and 2025 classes.
“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,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said in a press release. “The use of race as a thumb on the scale that helps or disadvantages any student is illegal. The Department will continue to enforce equal treatment under the law everywhere — including in our nation’s law schools.”
The department alleges that UCLA’s law school used racial proxies to identify applicants of preferred minority backgrounds, and further designed its application to include personal statements and essay prompts that would elicit information about race.
In a letter dated Thursday, the Department of Justice explains that it reviewed UCLA law school’s applicant level data from 2019 through 2025 and found that race had a “large effect” on an applicant’s chances of acceptance. The DOJ also concluded that there was no “meaningful change” to the law school’s admissions policies after the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision, which ruled that race-conscious admissions violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. As a recipient of federal funding and public institution, UCLA is bound by both laws, although the DOJ’s letter only mentions the Civil Rights Act.
“For the 2025 incoming class, black applicants had approximately seven times the odds of admission to UCLA Law compared to otherwise equivalent white applicants,” the DOJ wrote in its letter. “Hispanic applicants that year had approximately two times the odds of admission compared to otherwise equivalent white applicants. These disparities are statistically significant.”
Data dating back to the 2019 incoming class reveals that the median LSAT scores of admitted black and Hispanic students were always lower than that of the accepted white and Asian students in the same admissions cycle, per the DOJ’s letter. In three of the seven years, white and Asian students had the same median LSAT score. Of the other four years, there was a 1 point difference in either direction.
“In 2024 and 2025 (combined), half of the admitted black applicants had LSAT scores that were at or below 90% of the admitted white applicants,” the DOJ explains. “To put these numbers in perspective, 168 was the median LSAT score for those white and Asian applicants who were denied admission to UCLA Law. In other words, white and Asian applicants are being turned away from UCLA Law who would likely have been admitted if they were of the ‘right’ race.”
The DOJ cites programming activities, internal communications, and prior statements from UCLA’s leadership as evidence that the law school intended to discriminate on the basis of race in admissions by resorting to proxies.
A prospective student asked via email one week before the SFFA decision how the UCLA law school would ensure that “future classes are diverse” after the ruling, and the law school’s Assistant Dean of Admissions Robert Schwartz responded: “Actually, any changes in the law announced by the Supreme Court will not change anything at UCLA Law.” He further wrote that “we are very proud of the diversity of our student body” and “58% of last fall’s entering class were students of color.”
The Justice Department’s letter mentions that Michael Drake, who served as president of the University of California system from 2020 to 2025, publicly responded to the Students for Fair Admissions decision by affirming that “student diversity remains a top priority for the University of California — one that we will continue to pursue with every tool available to us.”
Gene Block, the Chancellor of UCLA from 2007 to 2024, described the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action as “a painful blow” that would have “a substantial impact on efforts to expand opportunity and diversity. . . .” Block compared the SFFA ruling to California’s Proposition 209, which bars discrimination on the basis of race in government institutions (including public universities), and explained that UCLA “sought to maintain our commitment to diversity . . . [through] holistic admissions policies.”
Russell Korobkin, the interim dean of UCLA’s law school in 2023, sent an email to the law school’s faculty and staff after the SFFA decision. He that affirmed that, “as a law school, we will continue to value diversity and insist on inclusion.”
Just months after the ruling on affirmative action in late June of 2023, the UC system circulated an internal document titled “Guidance on Proposition 209 for Admissions and Outreach Staff” that stated the Supreme Court decision “has not changed the legal landscape for UC’s admissions and outreach practices.” According to the DOJ’s letter, that document stated that “[f]or over two decades UC has steadfastly sought to use race-neutral means to increase diversity in admissions, such as . . . comprehensive and holistic application review. . . .”
The internal guidance detailed the “race-neutral” proxies that may receive additional weight during a “holistic” review of an applicant to achieve a more diverse incoming class; the proxies outlined were “income level, first generation to attend college, neighborhood or community circumstances, disadvantages overcome, low-performing secondary school attended, and the impact of an applicant’s background and experiences on academic achievement.”
During its “14th Annual Diversity Admissions Open House” in November, 2023, UCLA law school’s admissions staff reportedly instructed applicants on how to use their race in their applications and offered an application fee waiver to all the attendees. The assistant dean of admissions stated that, “we are proud of our holistic review process which enables us to enroll a diverse class. . . 58% of this year’s first year class are students of color and 63% are women.”
The then-assistant director of admissions Tony Tolbert reportedly explained how race could be incorporated in personal statements and responses to essay prompts. When speaking during the open house, Tolbert reportedly said of SFFA: “Impact on UCLA Law admissions practices — none.” Tolbert is an adjunct faculty member who co-teaches “Reparations for Black Americans: What, Why and How?” He also directs UCLA’s “Street Law Clinic” and co-hosts the podcast “Pay The Tab,” which is focused on defending reparations. “America has never faced up to the atrocities its massive wealth was built on — or the racism that still plagues us today,” says the podcast’s website. “The time is now for reparations to Black Americans!”
The Department of Justice is seeking a voluntary resolution agreement with the UCLA law school to ensure future compliance.
UCLA’s law school has a Critical Race Studies center, and seven law school courses for this ongoing semester as listed under the “critical race studies” area of focus, including “Race Conscious Remedies” and “Borders, Punishment, and Control.” The law school also publishes the “The Chicanx-Latinx Law Review” and “Indigenous Peoples’ Journal of Law, Culture & Resistance,” among others.
National Review noted in May that the DOJ concluded its investigation into UCLA’s medical school and found that black and Hispanic students with “significantly lower median” MCAT and GPAs are admitted. Data from the 2024 medical school incoming class showed that Hispanic students had a median GPA of 3.56 and black students had a median GPA of 3.72, whereas the median GPA of white and Asian students was 3.83 and 3.84, respectively.