Students Against Racial Discrimination (SARD) are challenging the University of California's holistic admissions policy regarding undergraduate freshmen, transfer, graduate, and law school students. They argue that the policy unfairly favors Black and Hispanic candidates and is a way to bypass the legal requirement that race not be a factor in admissions decisions.

On May 20, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss due to a lack of standing since the members of Plaintiff's organization wouldn't have standing to sue on their own. Defendants also stated that Plaintiff brought claims against the Chancellors of all ten UC campuses based on admissions practices and outcomes but was unable to provide any sufficient facts to make a plausible discrimination claim. Lastly, Defendants pushed for dismissal of Plaintiff's Title VI claims since the individual Defendants did not receive federal funds.

On June 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that included more detail on Students Against Racial Discrimination and its members who intend and will apply for admission to each of University of California's nine undergraduate campuses, five law schools, and six medical schools. There is also more detail on the numbers of Black and Hispanic accepted at UC medical schools.

On June 20, 2025, Defendants filed a notice of related cases and requested that the court combine this case and Do No Harm, et al v. David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA et al since Plaintiff's first amended complaint added claims of racial discrimination in admissions at six University of California medical schools.

On August 12, 2025, the court decided that this case shouldn't be combined with the cases Defendants raised.

On August 14, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and strike Plaintiff's amended complaint. Defendants argued that Plaintiff lacked standing because it failed to plausibly allege that it's a genuine membership organization. Defendants also argued that Plaintiff lacked standing because none of their members are able and ready to apply to the schools.

On December 16, 2025, the court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss and strike in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against UC medical schools (with leave to amend) as well as their claims under Section 1981 and the Equal Protection Clause (without leave to amend). The court stated that Plaintiff was not able to identify any member who is able and ready to apply to UC medical schools.

On January 7, 2026, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint that included more individual members of their organization and reasons why they are ready and able to apply to UC undergraduate programs across nine campuses.

On February 12, 2026, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint that included more information on the Regents' bylaws that describe the chancellors' responsibilities. From there the Plaintiff includes arguments about why the chancellors are appropriate defendants here since they serve as the "executive heads" of their campuses.

On February 20, 2026, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss claims as to the university chancellors. Defendants argued that Plaintiff's third amended complaint still failed to allege a direct connection between the actions of individual chancellors and its UC's undergraduate and law school admissions processes. Defendants also argued that sovereign immunity bars Plaintiff's claims against the chancellors.

On February 25, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.

On February 27, 2026, Defendants withdrew their initial motion to dismiss the case and filed a new one to dismiss the third amended complaint.