DOJ Finds UC Berkeley Law Discriminated Against White and Asian Applicants

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on September 9, 2026, that it has found the University of California, Berkeley School of Law intentionally discriminated against white and Asian applicants during its admissions processes for the 2024 and 2025 incoming classes. The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division claims the law school violated federal civil rights laws by continuing race-conscious admissions practices despite the 2023 Supreme Court ruling outlawing such policies.

DOJ’s Findings and Allegations

The investigation, led by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, concluded that UC Berkeley Law deliberately sidestepped the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), which banned explicit race-based preferences in college admissions. According to the DOJ, the law school’s application materials encouraged applicants to discuss race and ethnicity as part of their diversity contributions, effectively maintaining racial considerations under the guise of “race-neutral” proxies.

In a sharp letter to Berkeley Law’s legal counsel, Dhillon wrote, “The evidence shows that Berkeley Law deliberately discriminates against applicants based on race.” The DOJ also referenced comments made by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who allegedly sought ways to preserve racial preferences despite the court’s ruling. The letter highlighted Chemerinsky’s past remarks about using “proxies for race” and efforts to disguise discriminatory practices.

Dean Chemerinsky’s Response

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky rejected the DOJ’s accusations, insisting that Berkeley Law complies fully with Proposition 209, federal statutes, and the Constitution. In a public statement, he said, “Our admissions policy is clear that race is not considered in any way in admissions decisions.” Chemerinsky emphasized that the school pursues diversity without giving explicit racial preferences.

Chemerinsky also addressed the DOJ’s focus on his previous comments, denying any intention to circumvent the Supreme Court decision. He described his remarks about “unstated affirmative action” in faculty hiring as misinterpreted and stressed that admissions decisions have been race-neutral since the ruling.

Background on Admissions Practices Post-Supreme Court Ruling

The 2023 Supreme Court decision in SFFA v. Harvard and UNC struck down race-conscious admissions policies nationwide, demanding universities find new, race-neutral ways to promote diversity. Many institutions, including UC Berkeley Law, publicly pledged compliance with the ruling. However, the DOJ investigation suggests Berkeley Law sought to maintain racial considerations indirectly through application questions about applicants’ “perspective, experience, Voice,” which included race/ethnicity as a factor.

The DOJ’s letter also referenced a recorded talk where Chemerinsky discussed the importance of diversity in faculty hiring, even noting a willingness to deny such considerations if questioned under oath, raising concerns about transparency and compliance.

Wider Implications for Higher Education

This federal action is part of a broader crackdown on colleges and universities accused of violating the Supreme Court’s ban on race-based admissions. The DOJ, under the current Republican administration of President Donald Trump, has intensified scrutiny of higher education diversity policies, targeting institutions it views as defying federal law.

Legal experts say the UC Berkeley Law case could signal increased enforcement efforts nationwide, pressuring universities to review and potentially overhaul admissions criteria to avoid similar allegations of discrimination.

As the case develops, Berkeley Law faces potential legal challenges and reputational risks amid ongoing national debate over affirmative action, race-conscious policies, and equal opportunity in education. The DOJ’s findings underscore the tension between diversity goals and legal constraints in college admissions today.

The controversy serves as a reminder that institutions must navigate carefully between fostering inclusivity and adhering to federal civil rights laws, particularly under the current political landscape dominated by President Donald Trump’s administration.