Federal civil rights investigators have formally accused the UC Berkeley School of Law of engaging in systematic racial discrimination against white and Asian applicants, asserting that the institution violated the landmark 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that barred race-conscious affirmative action across American higher education.
The findings, outlined in a joint determination released by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Education, allege that the prestigious public law school actively instituted policies designed to circumvent the high court's mandate. Federal officials contend that the institution purposefully tailored its evaluation standards to engineer specific racial outcomes in its admitted classes.
Central to the federal government's claims is an analysis of standardized test scores and undergraduate academic records from recent application cycles. According to the six-page findings letter issued by federal authorities, combined data from the 2024 and 2025 admissions periods revealed that half of all Black students admitted to the law school registered Law School Admission Test (LSAT) scores lower than 95 percent of admitted white students.
The inquiry further asserted that during the 2025 admissions cycle, Black candidates faced odds of admission that were 5.8 times higher than those of comparable white candidates. Based on these statistical disparities, federal investigators concluded that the university exhibited a distinct bias favoring Black applicants while penalizing Asian and white individuals seeking entry to the law program.
Federal regulators took direct aim at the non-numerical components of Berkeley Law’s evaluation process. While the university utilizes holistic criteria—such as the rigor of an applicant's undergraduate coursework, personal statements, and letters of recommendation—the joint announcement characterized these qualitative measures as covert tactics deployed specifically to achieve predetermined institutional diversity objectives.
Harmeet Dhillon, the Justice Department's assistant attorney general for civil rights, issued a sharp rebuke alongside the findings, accusing university administrators of willfully disregarding federal legal standards. Dhillon maintained that the school's actions demonstrated a complete disregard for the rule of law and emphasized that the federal government would aggressively target academic institutions attempting to racially manipulate their student bodies.
To resolve the matter, the Trump administration announced that it is pursuing a formal voluntary resolution agreement that would mandate substantial revisions to the law school’s admissions framework. Federal authorities warned that if UC Berkeley declines to negotiate or reach an agreement to overhaul its practices, the Department of Justice will proceed with a civil enforcement lawsuit.
University of California officials and law school leaders immediately rejected the accusations, defending the integrity and legality of their selection procedures. In an official statement, UC Berkeley asserted that every admitted applicant is selected strictly on the basis of individual merit and maintained that the campus would spare no effort to deliver comprehensive evidence confirming its full adherence to all governing legal standards and policies.
Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of UC Berkeley School of Law and a prominent constitutional scholar, strongly defended the institution’s practices against the federal accusations. Chemerinsky stated that Berkeley Law scrupulously adheres to the United States Constitution, relevant federal statutes, and California state law, dismissing the claim that the school utilizes unlawful racial preferences.
Chemerinsky emphasized that existing legal frameworks do not prohibit academic institutions from seeking diverse student bodies, provided that admissions committees do not grant actionable preferences based on an applicant's race. The dean unequivocally noted that Berkeley Law does not confer race-based advantages in its candidate evaluations.
The university also addressed specific claims concerning an ethnic identity question included on its application materials. Berkeley Law’s official admissions policies specify that the prompt is strictly optional and collected solely to satisfy mandatory demographic reporting requirements for state and federal regulatory bodies, with explicit assurances that the information is excluded from admissions decisions. University representatives observed that the federal news release referenced the question while omitting its optional nature.
The federal report notably arrived at its conclusions without integrating data derived from the university's comprehensive review system. For decades, the University of California system has evaluated applicants through this holistic framework rather than relying strictly on standardized testing and grade point averages, maintaining that such multifaceted assessments occur without consideration of racial background.
The accusations also touch upon California's distinct legal landscape regarding affirmative action. Long before the Supreme Court's national ruling in 2023, California voters approved Proposition 209 in 1996, a state constitutional amendment that explicitly prohibited state agencies, including public universities, from granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, or ethnicity in public education and hiring.
The action against Berkeley Law represents an expansion of a broader federal review initiated in March 2025 that targeted admissions policies throughout the University of California system and Stanford University. The current determination follows a similar claim brought by the Justice Department in May against the UCLA School of Medicine, forming part of a broader series of federal investigations into California universities and higher education institutions nationwide.
(0)