The Department of Justice filed a federal civil lawsuit on May 26, 2026, against the University of California, alleging that UC administrators responded with deliberate indifference to race and national origin discrimination targeting Jewish and Israeli students at UCLA, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [1]. The complaint centers on conduct that allegedly occurred during pro-Palestinian encampment protests at UCLA in April 2024, during which Jewish students were reportedly physically assaulted, blocked from accessing campus buildings, and denied equal educational opportunities [1][2].
Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs receiving federal financial assistance. Courts and federal agencies have long recognized that discrimination targeting Jewish students can constitute prohibited discrimination on the basis of race and national origin under the statute. The DOJ's Civil Rights Division, led by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, brought the action [1]. The lawsuit names the University of California as defendant, with UCLA as the focal campus [2][3].
This is the second federal civil rights lawsuit DOJ has filed against the UC system in 2026. In February, the department filed a Title VII action alleging faculty-level discrimination [3]. The back-to-back filings signal a sustained enforcement posture toward UC rather than a single, isolated complaint. Bill Essayli, who serves as a senior DOJ official on the matter, has been publicly identified in connection with the litigation [1]. Because Title VI enforcement can implicate a university's eligibility to receive federal financial assistance, the lawsuit carries potential consequences beyond any damages award or injunctive relief secured in court.
The case now proceeds to the pleading and discovery phase in federal court. UC will have an opportunity to answer the complaint and contest the deliberate-indifference standard, which requires plaintiffs to show that institutional officials had actual notice of the discriminatory conduct and failed to respond adequately. Whether DOJ simultaneously pursues administrative remedies, including threatened funding cuts, remains a live question [2][3]. The dual-suit posture against UC suggests the department may seek broad institutional remedies rather than case-specific relief, and the outcome could shape how universities nationwide respond to campus demonstrations that allegedly target protected groups.