DOJ Targets UCLA Med School Admissions

The Trump Justice Department is stepping in to stop what it says is race-based gatekeeping at a top public medical school—putting UCLA’s admissions process under a constitutional microscope.

Quick Take

DOJ filed on Jan. 28, 2026, to intervene in a federal class-action lawsuit alleging UCLA’s Geffen School of Medicine used race in admissions decisions.
The original suit was filed in May 2025 by Do No Harm, Students for Fair Admissions, and rejected applicant Kelly Mahoney.
The allegations cite conflicts with the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling barring race-based admissions, and California’s Proposition 209.
DOJ leadership says the case targets “racial balancing” and DEI-driven practices that allegedly persisted after the Supreme Court’s decision.

DOJ Intervention Escalates a High-Stakes Medical School Case

The Department of Justice moved on Jan. 28, 2026, to join an ongoing federal lawsuit accusing UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine of using race in admissions. The class-action case, filed in May 2025, was brought by Do No Harm, Students for Fair Admissions, and white applicant Kelly Mahoney. DOJ’s intervention raises the stakes by signaling federal enforcement interest, not just a private dispute between rejected applicants and a university.

DOJ’s filing argues UCLA’s process amounted to racial balancing—an approach federal law and Supreme Court precedent reject—while also clashing with California’s Proposition 209, which has barred race-based preferences in public education since the late 1990s. UCLA, through a spokesperson, has largely limited public comment, saying it cannot discuss pending litigation while emphasizing it is committed to fair admissions processes and legal compliance.

The Legal Terrain: SCOTUS 2023 and California’s Prop 209

The conflict sits at the intersection of federal constitutional law and a longstanding California ban. The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in the Students for Fair Admissions cases barred universities from considering race as a factor in admissions, pushing schools toward race-neutral frameworks. Proposition 209, which applies to California public institutions, goes further by prohibiting race preferences in public education, employment, and contracting—meaning UCLA is constrained by both state and federal rules.

Plaintiffs and DOJ describe a post-2023 landscape where schools may keep race central by shifting it into essay prompts, “holistic review” narratives, or committee discussions that allegedly operate as proxies. The filings highlighted by multiple outlets include whistleblower accounts alleging UCLA admissions personnel discussed race in ways that affected outcomes. Those whistleblower claims are central to the narrative but remain allegations that the court process will test through evidence and sworn testimony.

What the DOJ Says UCLA Did—and What UCLA Has Said So Far

DOJ leaders framed the intervention as a direct pushback against what they describe as illegal DEI practices in admissions. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the department intends to hold universities accountable for unlawful policies, and Civil Rights Division leadership described the use of ancestry-based distinctions as unacceptable under American law. DOJ’s public messaging also argues that race preferences can stigmatize minority professionals by creating doubts about merit-based achievement.

UCLA has not publicly laid out a detailed defense in the reporting summarized in the research materials, beyond standard litigation posture and general assurances. That leaves the dispute, for now, anchored to the DOJ’s allegations and the plaintiffs’ claims, including the assertion that the school pursued a class “racially reflective” of California. With the case pending, the public record remains incomplete, and the most concrete next step will be court-ordered discovery and judicial rulings.

Admissions Metrics and the “Holistic Review” Flashpoint

One reason this case is drawing national attention is the focus on medical school standards, not just undergraduate admissions. Reporting summarized in the research includes MCAT score figures attributed to the allegations, describing differences among groups in the 2024 admitted class. The dispute is not simply about numbers, but about whether administrators used race as a thumb on the scale—especially after the Supreme Court said that thumb cannot be there.

Supporters of a race-neutral approach argue that medicine demands public trust and high competency standards, making transparent, merit-based admissions critical for patients and for the profession’s credibility. Critics of race-neutral enforcement often argue that institutions need flexibility to build diverse classes, but the legal question is whether that goal can be pursued through methods that explicitly or effectively treat applicants differently because of race—something both federal precedent and California law restrict.

Why This Fight Matters Beyond UCLA

DOJ’s intervention positions the case as a national signal to universities—especially public institutions in states that have pursued aggressive DEI agendas—that the post-2023 era is not optional. If the court grants an injunction or imposes restrictions, UCLA may be forced to rewrite how it evaluates essays, runs admissions committees, and documents decision-making. Other medical schools could adjust preemptively, anticipating similar scrutiny or whistleblower-driven litigation.

DOJ Sues To Block Alleged Race-Based Admissions at UCLA’s Geffen School of Medicine
https://t.co/ALph4v2klu

— Townhall Updates (@TownhallUpdates) January 31, 2026

The case also fits into a broader political and legal clash over government-backed identity frameworks. For conservative voters who watched years of bureaucratic “equity” mandates expand across education, this is the kind of enforcement moment that tests whether constitutional equal protection is treated as real law or as a slogan that can be routed around. For now, the key limitation is procedural: the allegations are serious, but the court has not yet ruled on the merits.