The U.S. Department of Justice said Wednesday that the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA violated federal law by using race in admissions decisions, escalating federal scrutiny of university diversity policies and placing one of the country’s leading public medical schools at the center of a major civil rights dispute.

The DOJ said its Civil Rights Division concluded that the school engaged in unlawful race-based decision-making in admissions, violating both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits institutions receiving federal funding from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

The findings come nearly three years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, which sharply restricted the use of race in college admissions. Since that decision, federal agencies and conservative legal organizations have increasingly challenged admissions and scholarship programs they argue continue to incorporate race unlawfully.

In a statement announcing the findings, the Justice Department said investigators reviewed admissions materials and internal practices at the medical school and determined that race was used in a manner inconsistent with federal law. The department did not immediately announce financial penalties or litigation but said UCLA must take corrective action to ensure compliance.

UCLA officials responded by defending the university’s admissions framework while disputing the federal government’s characterization of the process. The university said it remains committed to evaluating applicants through a holistic review system that considers academic achievement, leadership, service, research experience, and life background.

The university also emphasized that California has prohibited affirmative action in public university admissions for decades under Proposition 209, the 1996 ballot measure that bars state institutions from granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.

“UCLA is committed to complying with the law,” the university said in a statement, adding that the medical school’s admissions policies are designed to identify qualified future physicians capable of serving California’s diverse patient population.

The David Geffen School of Medicine is widely regarded as one of the top medical schools in the United States, with highly competitive admissions and strong research funding. The school has also publicly emphasized efforts to improve representation in medicine and expand opportunities for students from historically underserved communities.

Medical schools nationwide have argued that diversity in physician training contributes to improved health outcomes, especially in underserved regions and among populations facing disparities in care. Admissions officers and healthcare organizations have frequently cited studies suggesting that a more representative physician workforce can improve patient trust, communication, and access to care.

But opponents of race-conscious admissions say such policies unfairly disadvantage applicants based on race and violate constitutional protections. Conservative legal groups have increasingly targeted universities, scholarship programs, and corporate diversity initiatives in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling.

The DOJ’s findings against UCLA could carry implications far beyond California. Legal analysts say the action may serve as a warning to medical schools and graduate programs across the country that federal investigators are prepared to aggressively enforce the Supreme Court’s restrictions.

Several universities have already revised admissions essays, diversity statements, and recruitment strategies since the Supreme Court decision. Schools have attempted to maintain diversity goals through race-neutral approaches, including expanded socioeconomic considerations, geographic targeting, first-generation student outreach, and pipeline programs.

However, federal officials and advocacy groups continue to debate where the legal boundary lies between permissible holistic review and impermissible consideration of race.

The investigation into UCLA also arrives during a broader period of federal intervention in higher education governance. Universities across the country have faced investigations involving antisemitism complaints, transgender athlete policies, campus protests, foreign funding disclosures, and scholarship eligibility rules.

In recent months, the federal government has increased pressure on universities to demonstrate compliance with civil rights laws while also responding to political scrutiny from Congress and state lawmakers. Public universities in particular face competing demands from federal agencies, state governments, faculty groups, alumni networks, and student organizations.

The issue carries additional sensitivity in medical education because of ongoing physician shortages in many parts of the United States. Universities and healthcare systems have warned that reducing outreach to underrepresented communities could worsen workforce gaps in primary care and rural medicine.

At the same time, critics of affirmative action argue that admissions decisions should rely strictly on academic and professional qualifications without regard to race. Some advocacy organizations have pledged to continue filing complaints against institutions they believe circumvent the Supreme Court ruling through indirect or proxy methods.

The DOJ did not publicly release all investigative materials tied to the UCLA case, and it remains unclear whether the dispute could lead to litigation or negotiated compliance measures. The university may seek to challenge aspects of the findings or negotiate changes with federal authorities.

The case is likely to intensify debate throughout academic medicine, where diversity initiatives remain deeply embedded in recruitment, mentoring, and public health strategies. Admissions officers at medical schools have spent the past several years attempting to redesign evaluation systems while preserving educational and clinical goals related to representation and access.

Federal enforcement actions against elite institutions also carry symbolic significance because they can influence policy decisions throughout higher education. Universities often adjust practices proactively after investigations involving peer institutions, particularly when federal funding and accreditation risks are involved.

The Department of Justice has not indicated whether additional investigations involving medical schools are pending. But civil rights attorneys and education policy experts say Wednesday’s announcement suggests federal oversight of admissions practices will remain an active issue heading into the next academic admissions cycle.

For UCLA, the dispute represents a new legal and political challenge for a flagship public university that has long balanced academic competitiveness with public-service and equity missions. The outcome could shape how professional schools nationwide interpret and implement admissions policies in the post-affirmative-action era.