Department of Justice Intervenes in Lawsuit Challenging UCLA Medical School’s Race-Based Admissions

What's happening

The U.S. Department of Justice has stepped into a high-profile lawsuit against the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Medical School, which alleges that the institution unlawfully considers race in its admissions process. This intervention is led by Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon and reflects a continuation of policies from the Trump administration aimed at eliminating race-based admissions practices at public universities nationwide. The lawsuit contends that UCLA’s admissions procedures violate recent Supreme Court rulings that prohibit the direct use of race as a factor in selecting students.

The lawsuit was originally filed in May by two groups: Do No Harm (DNH), a medical advocacy organization, and Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a group known for challenging affirmative action policies. SFFA notably played a central role in a landmark Supreme Court case that ended affirmative action at Harvard University. The complaint alleges that UCLA Medical School’s application process includes questions that effectively require applicants to disclose their racial identity and describe how racial inequities have affected them or their communities, which the plaintiffs argue amounts to racial consideration in admissions.

At the core of this legal dispute is the question of whether public medical schools can legally factor race into admissions decisions in any form. The Department of Justice’s filing asserts that the Supreme Court has mandated colorblind admissions policies for all public and publicly funded universities, signaling a clear legal boundary against race-conscious selection. The DOJ argues that UCLA’s approach undermines this ruling and that the only lawful way to pursue diversity is by admitting the most qualified candidates without regard to race.

UCLA Medical School officials, including Associate Dean for Admissions Jennifer Lucero, have emphasized their commitment to diversity in the medical profession. They argue that a diverse student body is essential to preparing physicians who can effectively serve an increasingly diverse population. However, the DOJ counters that while diversity is a worthy goal, it cannot be pursued through admissions policies that explicitly consider race, as this could erode public confidence in the qualifications of medical professionals and the fairness of the admissions process.

What's at stake

The implications of this lawsuit extend far beyond UCLA, as it could set a precedent affecting medical schools and other higher education institutions across the country. The Department of Justice’s involvement signals a potential federal shift toward stricter enforcement against race-based admissions practices. This could lead universities to reevaluate and possibly overhaul their diversity initiatives, balancing legal compliance with efforts to foster inclusive educational environments.

Supporters of race-conscious admissions argue that diversity in medical education is critical for addressing health disparities and improving patient outcomes, particularly in marginalized communities. They contend that understanding the social determinants of health is an essential skill for future doctors, which a diverse student body helps cultivate. Critics, however, maintain that admissions should be strictly merit-based and that any consideration of race undermines fairness and equal opportunity.

The legal landscape remains complex, especially following the Supreme Court’s nuanced ruling in the SFFA case. Chief Justice John Roberts noted that while direct racial preferences are prohibited, applicants may still discuss how their race has influenced their life experiences. This distinction has led some institutions to explore indirect methods of considering race without violating the court’s decision. The ongoing case against UCLA may prompt further judicial clarification on these issues.

As this lawsuit progresses, it will be important to watch how UCLA responds and whether other medical schools adjust their admissions policies in light of the DOJ’s position. The case could ultimately influence the balance between diversity goals and merit-based admissions across public medical education. The outcome may also shape future federal enforcement priorities and judicial interpretations regarding race and admissions.

Looking ahead, the legal proceedings are expected to unfold over the coming months or years, potentially reaching higher courts for definitive rulings. Stakeholders in medical education, civil rights, and legal communities will closely monitor developments, as the decisions made here could redefine admissions practices nationwide and impact the composition of the future medical workforce.

Why it matters

The Department of Justice’s intervention highlights federal enforcement against race-based admissions in public universities. The lawsuit challenges UCLA Medical School’s use of race-related questions in its admissions process. This case follows a broader legal trend after the Supreme Court’s rulings limiting affirmative action policies.

The outcome could reshape how medical schools nationwide approach diversity and admissions criteria. The dispute raises questions about balancing diversity goals with merit-based selection in medical education. Legal clarifications from this case may influence future admissions policies and federal oversight.

The case underscores ongoing tensions between efforts to promote diversity and constitutional constraints.

Key facts & context

The lawsuit against UCLA Medical School was filed in May by Do No Harm and Students for Fair Admissions. Students for Fair Admissions previously led a successful Supreme Court challenge to affirmative action at Harvard. The Department of Justice’s intervention is led by Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon.

UCLA’s admissions process includes questions about applicants’ identification with marginalized groups and related inequities. The Supreme Court recently ruled that public universities cannot use race as a direct factor in admissions decisions. Jennifer Lucero is UCLA Medical School’s Associate Dean for Admissions and has publicly supported diversity efforts.

The DOJ argues that race-conscious admissions practices could harm public trust in medical professionals’ qualifications. Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion in the SFFA case allows discussion of race’s impact on applicants’ lives but prohibits racial preferences. The Department of Justice’s position aligns with policies initiated during the Trump administration.

The case against UCLA may prompt further judicial guidance on permissible admissions practices. The lawsuit and DOJ intervention could influence admissions policies at other public medical schools across the U.S.

Timeline & key developments

2026-01-30: Department of Justice Supports Lawsuit Against UCLA Medical School's Admissions Practices. Additional reporting on this topic is available in our broader archive and will continue to shape this timeline as new developments emerge.

Primary sources

• courtlistener.com document

Further reading & references

• (Additional background links will appear here as we cover this topic.)