Judge blocks Trump from fining UCLA $1.2 billion over antisemitism claims without due process

U.S. District Judge RLRita Lin, nominated to the bench by President Joe Biden, issued a preliminary injunction late on Nov. 15, 2025, barring the Trump administration from canceling funding to the University of 🌴California based on alleged discrimination without proper notice and hearings. The administration over the summer demanded that UCLA pay $1.2 billion to restore frozen research funding and ensure eligibility for future funding after accusing the school of allowing antisemitism on campus. UCLA was the first public university to be targeted by the administration over allegations of civil rights violations.

University of 🌴California President JBJames B. Milliken said the size of the $1.2 billion fine would devastate the UC system, whose campuses are viewed as some of the top public colleges in the nation. UC is in settlement talks with the administration and is not a party to the lawsuit before Judge Lin. The administration has previously struck deals with Brown University for $50 million and Columbia University for $221 million over similar allegations, showing it's willing to negotiate but demanding substantial payments.

The Trump administration has demanded UCLA comply with its views on gender identity and establish a process to make sure foreign students are not admitted if they're likely to engage in anti-American, anti-Western, or antisemitic "disruptions or harassment," among other requirements outlined in a settlement proposal made public in Oct. 2025. These demands go beyond traditional civil rights enforcement to include ideology-based admissions screening.

President Trump has decried elite colleges as overrun by liberalism and antisemitism. His administration has launched investigations of dozens of universities, claiming they've failed to end the use of racial preferences in violation of civil rights law. The Republican administration says diversity, equity and inclusion efforts discriminate against white and Asian American students. These investigations represent a systematic targeting of higher education institutions.

Judge Lin's preliminary injunction requires the administration to give notice to affected faculty and conduct hearings before cutting funding, establishing due process protections that the administration had bypassed. The injunction bars canceling funding based on alleged discrimination without following proper procedures. This creates a template for other universities facing similar demands to challenge the administration's enforcement tactics in court.

The contrast between public and private university treatment is significant. Brown and Columbia, both private institutions, settled for $50 million and $221 million respectively. UCLA, a public university, faces a $1.2 billion demand—more than twice Columbia's settlement and 24 times Brown's. This suggests the administration may be targeting public institutions more aggressively, potentially because they receive more federal research funding and have less financial flexibility than wealthy private schools.

The settlement proposals demand ideological compliance beyond traditional civil rights enforcement. The requirement to screen foreign students for potential "anti-American" or "anti-Western" views before admission represents a political litmus test that universities have historically resisted. The demand UCLA comply with the administration's "views on gender identity" similarly imposes political orthodoxy on academic institutions that have traditionally maintained independence.