Judge blocks Trump’s $1.2 billion fine against UCLA over alleged anti-Semitism

A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from imposing $1.2 billion in fines on UCLA and making it eligible for federal aid as conditions for sweeping campus changes.

The decision is a major victory for universities that have fought against President Trump’s efforts to discipline “very bad” universities that he claims have mistreated Jewish students, forced them to pay steep fines and adhere to conservative standards.

A spokesman for the US Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The initial order, issued by U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lane of the Northern District of California, provided — for now — nearly every aspect of the more than 7,000-word settlement proposal the federal government sent to the University of California in August after it suspended a $584 million medical, science and energy research grant from Angelus Louis.

The government said it froze the funds after UCLA was found to have broken the law by using race as a factor in admissions, identifying the gender of transgender people and failing to take seriously anti-Semitic complaints during pro-Palestinian protests in 2024 — claims UC has denied.

The compromise proposal outlined sweeping changes to encourage UCLA — and by extension all of UC — to end diversity-related scholarships, restrictions on foreign student enrollment, a declaration that transgender people do not exist, an end to gender-affirming health care for minors, restrictions on free speech and more.

“The administration and its executive branch are engaged in a concerted campaign to purge ‘woke’, ‘leftist,’ and ‘socialist’ ideas from our nation’s leading universities,” Lane wrote in his opinion. “Administration officials, as well as the president and vice president, have repeatedly and publicly announced the launch of civil rights investigations of leading universities to cut off federal funding, with the goal of forcing universities to change their ideologies.” In protests, and confirm the institution’s view of gender, among other things, the defenders offer nothing to deny it.

“It’s unbelievable that this exact playbook is now being executed at the University of California,” Lane added.

Universities including Columbia, Brown and Cornell have agreed to pay hundreds of millions to the government to apologize for alleged violations similar to UCLA’s. The University of Pennsylvania and the University of Virginia have also reached agreements with the Trump administration that focus on ending recognition of transgender people and curbing diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, respectively.

Friday’s decision, for now, prevents UC from moving forward with negotiations it has entered into with the federal government to avoid further aid cuts and restrictions on the system, which receives $17.5 billion in federal funding each year. UC President James B. Milliken said the $1.2 billion fine would “completely devastate” UC and that the system, under attack from the Trump administration, faces “one of the most serious threats in UC’s 157-year history.”

This isn’t the first time a judge has slammed Trump for his higher education campaign. Massachusetts-based U.S. District Judge Alison Burrows ordered the government in September to return billions in shortfalls to Harvard. But the case did not directly lead to settlement negotiations.

These talks are going on slowly. At a court hearing last week, a Justice Department lawyer said “there is no evidence that any deal with the United States is imminent.” The lawyer argued that the settlement proposal was just an idea that had not received the UC’s approval.

Because of this, he said, a case was inappropriate. Lynn disagreed.

“The plaintiffs’ harm is already very real. With each passing day, UCLA continues to win new grants and increase the plaintiffs’ pressure campaign,” she wrote. “And many UC faculty and staff have submitted statements explaining how the defendants’ actions have already silenced speech throughout the UC system.”

The lawsuit was brought by more than a dozen faculty and staff unions and unions on 10 UC campuses, who said the federal government was violating their First Amendment rights and their constitutional right to due process. The UC, which has avoided directly challenging the government in court, was not a party to the lawsuit.

“This is not only a landmark case — brought by every labor union and faculty union at UC — but also an incredible victory,” said Vina Dobel, a UC Irvine law professor and general counsel for one of the plaintiffs, the American Assn. University professors, who have members on UC campuses.

Doble called the decision “a turning point in the fight to protect freedom of expression and research in the best public school system in the world.”

Asked about Friday’s results, a spokesman said UC is “focused on our vital work to drive innovation, advance medical breakthroughs and strengthen the nation’s long-term competitiveness. UC is committed to maintaining the mission, governance, and academic freedom of the university.”

Zoé Hamstead, director of external relations and legal affairs for the UC Council of Faculty Assns., said she was “pleased that the court upheld our First Amendment rights.”

The organization is an umbrella group of faculty unions across UC campuses that are suing.

Hamstead, an associate professor of city and regional planning at UC Berkeley, said he is proud to be part of a coalition representing University of California faculty, researchers and staff challenging the growing despotism in federal court.

Anna Markowitz, an associate professor in UCLA’s School of Education and Information Studies and president of the Los Angeles Campus Faculty Association, said her chapter is “very pleased with this decision, which will stop the current federal outreach at UC.”

“The UCLA faculty is proud to stand with this coalition, which demonstrates that when faced with an institution that targets the heart of higher education, the only option is to retreat,” Markowitz said.

Lane’s ruling is not the final word on the case, which will continue through the legal process as it determines whether a permanent injunction is warranted. The government could also appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, as it has done for other cases, including one filed by UC researchers to restore funding for the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, among others.

The appeal court hearing in this case was held on Friday. A decision remains.