The U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division concluded on June 10 that the UC Davis School of Medicine in California illegally considered race in its admissions process. The determination followed a six-month probe and cited conflicts with the 2026 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA) decision and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Investigators said they will pursue settlement negotiations and, if necessary, legal action to bring the program into compliance. Ultimo aggiornamento: June 15, 2026.
The finding matters because medical schools receive substantial federal funding and must comply with federal non-discrimination law. The DOJ said UC Davis deployed admissions strategies designed to bypass the SFFA ruling, potentially affecting the composition of future physician cohorts. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said, “Davis Med’s actions reflect both unabashed contempt for the rule of law and plain disregard for the potential public health consequences of putting race over merit, skill, and competence.” The agency placed the case within a wider pattern it is monitoring nationwide.
DOJ legal basis and timeline of the determination
Investigators framed the determination under Title VI and the SFFA precedent, which bars using race as a factor in admissions. The DOJ’s review of 2026 admissions data identified disparities that, in its view, were inconsistent with merit-based selection and reflective of race-conscious outcomes. The Department said it will open settlement talks to secure compliance and, failing that, initiate litigation. The same enforcement posture now extends to other medical schools, with the DOJ stating it has also determined that UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine and Yale University School of Medicine engaged in similar practices, underscoring the federal government’s ongoing scrutiny.
Admissions model and data cited by investigators
At the center of the review was the Davis Scaledescribed as a model using eight socioeconomic factors—such as parental income, parental education, and residency in a medically underserved area—to evaluate applicants. The DOJ argued the scale operated as a substitute for race after SFFA, and it cited internal materials referencing “class-based affirmative action.” Dr. Mark Henderson, Associate Dean of Admissions, was quoted describing the approach as class-based and saying “that’s how we skirted the issue,” pointing to overlap between class and race. Data reviewed from 2026 indicated that 93% of white and certain Asian admittees had MCAT scores at or above the average Black admittee, and that Black and Hispanic applicants were admitted at up to six times the rate of white and Asian applicants with stronger academic metrics.
Program outcomes, costs, and broader scrutiny
UC Davis reported growth in the share of underrepresented in medicine students, rising from 24% in 2011 to 58% by 2026. The DOJ said such outcomes were achieved through methods inconsistent with SFFA and Title VI, emphasizing the importance of adhering to merit standards. Investigators also highlighted the financial stakes of medical education, with graduates carrying average debt of about $202,000heightening the impact of admissions decisions. Officials signaled ongoing monitoring of medical schools nationwide and reiterated that settlement discussions will precede any lawsuit, while stressing that any approach to diversity must align with federal law and maintain transparency in selection criteria.
