The Justice and Education departments found UC Berkeley's law school in violation of Title VI, citing admissions data that showed sharply different odds of admission for Black, Asian, and White applicants.
The Department of Justice and the Department of Education have concluded that the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law discriminated against Asian and White applicants in its admissions process -- a finding that carries the administration's drive for race-neutral college admissions into one of the nation's most prestigious law schools.
Federal officials determined that Berkeley Law violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial discrimination in programs that receive federal funding. The conclusion followed a compliance review of the law school that opened in March 2025, roughly two years after the Supreme Court ended the use of race as a factor in admissions nationwide.
The federal analysis of Berkeley Law's own admissions data produced what officials describe as a clear pattern. The department stated that the numbers show "a strong bias against Asian and White applicants, with a corresponding bias in favor of Black applicants."
The gap in outcomes was substantial. For the 2025 entering class, the analysis found that Black applicants had 5.8 times higher odds of admission than comparable White applicants. Officials said the disparity held even after the academic profiles of the students who were admitted were taken into account.
Test scores pointed in the same direction. A review of Law School Admission Test results for admitted students in 2024 and 2025 found that 37 percent of Black admits scored below 99 percent of admitted White applicants, while half of admitted Black applicants scored below 95 percent of admitted White applicants.
Median scores across the five most recent admissions cycles told a similar story. Black admits clustered around 165 on the LSAT, compared with roughly 172 for Asian and White admits and about 169 for Hispanic admits. The department put the divide plainly in its letter to attorney Tania Faransso, who represents the law school: "The median Black admit consistently has an LSAT score about 5 points lower than the median white or Asian admits."
The makeup of the student body reflects those decisions. As of October 2025, Berkeley Law enrolled 1,128 students. Of them, 516 were White, 293 were Asian, 51 were Black, and 130 were Hispanic.
The law school rejected the findings outright and said its process follows the law. "Our admissions policy is clear that race is not considered in any way in admissions decisions," the school said in a statement. It argued that Proposition 209, federal statutes, and Supreme Court precedent still allow institutions to pursue diversity through race-neutral factors such as socioeconomic background and personal experience.
The school maintained that it does not grant preferences based on race and that its approach complies with state and federal rules. California has banned affirmative action in public education since voters approved Proposition 209 in 1996, a restriction that makes the state an unusual backdrop for the federal case. Officials nonetheless argue that the data shows preferences survived in practice.
University of California, Berkeley's central administration echoed the law school's position, saying the campus is "committed to ensuring that every student is admitted based on their merit, and not on their race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin." The university also pledged to provide evidence that it meets all applicable admissions rules.
The Berkeley Law finding is the latest in a widening series of federal actions aimed at graduate programs in California. The Justice Department previously moved against the University of California, Los Angeles over its admissions practices, part of a wave of allegations that followed the Supreme Court's 2023 decision barring race-conscious admissions.
The administration has framed the effort as a matter of simple fairness: the same standard should apply to every applicant, and a student's race should never decide who earns a seat at a top school. Supporters say the reviews are restoring merit as the deciding factor in a system that had quietly drifted away from it.
The reviews have centered heavily on law and medical schools, where admissions decisions shape who goes on to enter the legal and medical professions. That focus reflects both the influence of those graduates and the unusually detailed data that professional programs report about their classes.
Berkeley Law now faces the prospect of federal enforcement. A Title VI violation can put federal funding at risk, giving the government meaningful leverage over how the school builds its incoming classes. The university has signaled that it will contest the conclusion and produce evidence it says will demonstrate compliance.
The dispute sets up another test of how far universities can go in pursuing diversity without running afoul of the law. Additional federal findings are expected at other campuses, and each one adds pressure on schools to document, in detail, exactly how admissions decisions are made and why.
The stakes reach well beyond a single campus. If the finding stands, it would tighten the limits on diversity efforts at the nation's most selective programs and reinforce the standard the administration has pressed since taking office: equal treatment under the law, with merit rather than race as the measure of who gets in.
The Justice and Education departments found UC Berkeley's law school in violation of Title VI, citing admissions data that showed sharply different odds of admission for Black, Asian, and White applicants.
freedomlinedispatch.com
