The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, alleging the elite institution systematically discriminated against white and Asian American applicants in its admissions process. The complaint, filed in federal court, accuses UCSF of using race as a determining factor in admissions decisions in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars racial discrimination in programs receiving federal funding.
The case marks one of the most aggressive moves yet by the Trump administration's DOJ to dismantle race-conscious admissions practices at top-tier medical schools, following the Supreme Court's landmark 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which struck down affirmative action in college admissions.
The Justice Department's complaint claims UCSF maintained a two-track admissions system that evaluated applicants differently based on race and ethnicity. White and Asian American applicants were allegedly held to higher academic and experiential standards than applicants from other racial groups, according to a report from the New York Post.
Federal investigators found that UCSF's admissions committees allegedly assigned race-based scores and routed applications through separate review tracks depending on the applicant's racial or ethnic background. The DOJ claims these practices persisted even after the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling made clear that race-based admissions preferences at institutions receiving federal funds are unconstitutional.
Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a statement framing the lawsuit as part of a broader effort to enforce the Supreme Court's ruling across higher education.
"The Supreme Court made clear that the use of race in admissions is unlawful. UCSF ignored that ruling and continued to sort applicants by the color of their skin rather than the content of their qualifications."
The complaint details statistical disparities in admissions rates, alleging that qualified white and Asian American applicants were rejected at significantly higher rates than similarly credentialed applicants from preferred racial categories. The DOJ claims internal UCSF communications show admissions officials discussed maintaining racial composition targets for incoming classes.
UCSF pushed back against the allegations. A university spokesperson called the lawsuit "baseless" and said the medical school's admissions process complies with all applicable law, including the Supreme Court's 2023 decision.
"UCSF School of Medicine conducts a holistic admissions review that considers the full range of each applicant's experiences and qualifications. We do not discriminate on the basis of race."
The university said it had already revised its admissions procedures following the Students for Fair Admissions ruling and planned to "vigorously defend" its practices in court. UCSF officials did not address the specific allegations about dual-track review or race-based scoring in their public statement.
The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, handed down in June 2023, held that race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, ruled that universities could not use race as a factor in admissions, though applicants could still discuss how their racial background shaped their personal experiences in essays.
The ruling left open questions about enforcement, particularly at graduate and professional schools. Medical schools drew special scrutiny because many had publicly committed to increasing racial diversity in the physician workforce, and critics alleged that some institutions simply repackaged race-based preferences under new labels after the decision.
The DOJ's complaint against UCSF alleges exactly that kind of workaround. Federal investigators claim the school adopted facially neutral criteria that functioned as proxies for race, while internal review processes continued to weigh applicants' racial identities directly.
UCSF School of Medicine ranks among the top medical schools in the country and receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research funding annually. That federal funding is what gives the DOJ jurisdiction under Title VI. A finding of discrimination could put that funding stream at risk.
The school has also been outspoken about its diversity commitments. UCSF leaders publicly pledged after the Students for Fair Admissions decision to find lawful ways to maintain diverse classes. Conservative legal organizations flagged those statements at the time, arguing they signaled an intent to circumvent the ruling rather than comply with it.
Do No Harm, a nonprofit that opposes identity-based policies in medicine, praised the DOJ's action. The group's chairman, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, said UCSF's practices reflected a broader pattern at medical schools nationwide.
"Medical schools have an obligation to admit the most qualified students, period. Patients don't benefit when schools pick doctors based on demographics rather than merit."
The DOJ's complaint leans heavily on admissions data. Federal investigators analyzed several years of UCSF admissions records and found that Asian American applicants with MCAT scores and GPAs in the top quartile were rejected at rates far exceeding those of applicants from underrepresented minority groups with lower quantitative credentials.
White applicants faced a similar pattern, though the statistical gap was somewhat narrower than the one affecting Asian Americans, the complaint alleges. The DOJ claims these disparities cannot be explained by differences in personal statements, extracurricular activities, or other non-academic factors and instead point to race as the operative variable.
UCSF has not released its own statistical analysis publicly. The university's statement referenced its "holistic" process but did not offer specific data to counter the DOJ's numbers.
Legal experts on both sides of the admissions debate said the UCSF case could set the template for how the federal government enforces the Students for Fair Admissions ruling at professional schools. If the DOJ prevails, other medical schools with similar diversity-focused admissions practices could face investigations or lawsuits.
The Association of American Medical Colleges has urged its member institutions to comply with the Supreme Court's decision while pursuing diversity through race-neutral means such as socioeconomic preferences, pipeline programs, and geographic considerations. The AAMC has not commented publicly on the UCSF lawsuit.
Conservative legal groups, including America First Legal and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, have filed their own complaints and lawsuits targeting medical school admissions at other institutions. The DOJ's direct involvement raises the stakes considerably, because the federal government can threaten funding cutoffs that private litigants cannot.
The case has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. UCSF will have the opportunity to respond formally to the complaint, and the court will set a schedule for discovery and potential motions. The DOJ is seeking injunctive relief that would bar UCSF from using race in admissions and require the school to submit to federal monitoring of its admissions practices.
Investigators have not publicly confirmed whether they are examining other University of California medical campuses, such as UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine, which has also faced scrutiny over its admissions demographics. The complaint focuses solely on UCSF.
The timeline for resolution remains uncertain. Title VI cases involving large universities and complex admissions data can take years to work through discovery, expert testimony, and trial. A settlement is possible but would likely require UCSF to accept significant federal oversight, something the university's public posture so far does not suggest it is willing to do.
For the thousands of aspiring doctors who apply to UCSF each year, the outcome of this case carries real consequences. If the DOJ's allegations hold up, it would mean that qualified applicants lost seats in one of the nation's premier medical programs not because they fell short on merit, but because of their race. That is precisely the kind of harm the Supreme Court said the Constitution forbids.
The case also raises questions about how many other elite institutions quietly maintained the same practices after the Court told them to stop. UCSF may be the test case, but it is unlikely to be the last.
When the nation's top medical schools decide who gets to become a doctor, the public has a right to know the criteria are fair. The DOJ just put UCSF on notice that "holistic" cannot be a code word for what the Supreme Court already ruled illegal.
