The Justice Department and Department of Education have announced a joint finding that UC Berkeley School of Law discriminated on the basis of race in its admissions process, marking a significant federal civil-rights enforcement action in the post-Students for Fair Admissions landscape. Although the announcement is not a final court judgment, it signals how aggressively federal agencies may scrutinize admissions practices at colleges and universities following the Supreme Court’s rejection of race-conscious admissions policies.

For Berkeley Law, the immediate stakes are obvious: a federal finding of noncompliance can trigger pressure to change admissions criteria, recordkeeping, training, and internal review procedures.

A federal judge in California has sharply limited the government’s ability to use immigration enforcement against noncitizen students based on political speech critical of Israel or the war in Gaza. In a ruling reported by the Associated Press, Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court in California found the policy likely violates the First Amendment and is impermissibly vague, barring enforcement while the case proceeds.

The challenge was brought with the involvement of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and the decision is notable because it addresses a question that has been looming over colleges and universities since protests intensified: whether the executive branch can treat campus advocacy as a basis for deportation when that advocacy is otherwise protected expression.

The U.S. Department of Justice has opened a new front in federal-state immigration litigation, filing suits against New York, Connecticut, and Vermont over laws that allow certain undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition rates and, in some cases, state financial aid. The federal government’s core argument is that these state policies conflict with federal restrictions on postsecondary education benefits tied to immigration status.

At the center of the dispute is the interaction between federal immigration law and state authority over public higher education.

The Justice Department said on August 6 that Duke University School of Law intentionally discriminated on the basis of race in admissions for its 2023, 2024, and 2025 entering classes, concluding that the school’s practices violated Title VI and the Supreme Court’s ban on race-based admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College et al.

The finding is significant not only because it targets a prominent law school, but because it shows continued federal enforcement activity after Students for Fair Admissions. That 2023 decision reshaped the legal framework for admissions nationwide, holding that the use of race in college admissions could not survive constitutional scrutiny.

The U.S. Department of Justice has opened a consequential new front in the federal-state debate over immigration and public benefits, suing New Jersey over state laws that allow undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition and state financial assistance at public colleges and universities. The complaint tees up a challenge with both preemption and constitutional dimensions, and it is likely to draw close attention from states, higher-education institutions, and practitioners watching the boundaries of state authority in immigration-adjacent policymaking.

At issue are New Jersey measures that extend reduced tuition rates and aid eligibility to certain students without lawful immigration status, provided they meet state-defined criteria.