This post was updated Feb. 13 at 10:00 p.m.
The Trump administration dropped its appeal of a decision Friday that blocked it from demanding a $1.2 billion settlement from UCLA.
The federal government froze $584 million in research funding to UCLA in late July, alleging that the university allowed antisemitism, affirmative action and “men to participate in women’s sports.” The Trump administration sent a letter to UCLA on Aug. 8 demanding that, in exchange for the restoration of the funds, the university pay a $1 billion fine and $172 million in a claims fund for people impacted by alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
[Related: Proposed UCLA settlement from federal government seeks $1 billion, policy changes]
Federal district judge Rita F. Lin temporarily restored the vast majority of UCLA’s frozen grants in two decisions in August and September.
The Trump administration also demanded in the settlement that UCLA stop offering race and ethnicity-based scholarships, hire two new administrators to oversee compliance with the settlement demands and share information about students and employees with the federal government. It also would have required the university to issue a public statement saying it did not recognize the identities of transgender people and stop offering gender-affirming care at UCLA Health facilities.
Lin blocked the proposed fine – and prevented the federal government from freezing or threatening to freeze more of the UC’s research funding – in an Nov. 14 decision on a lawsuit brought by UC employees.
Lin said in the November decision that the federal government’s funding suspension and subsequent settlement demands caused ongoing and imminent harm to the University.
The suspension, Lin added, was part of a playbook the Trump administration used against other leading universities, which included canceling federal grants and demanding payouts for their restoration.
U.S. Department of Justice attorneys filed the appeal Jan. 13 in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals but later filed a motion that said it would dismiss the appeal if Lin made certain changes to her November temporary injunction, which she agreed to in a Friday order.
The DOJ attorneys requested that Lin change the text of her injunction to clarify that civil rights investigations and litigations may result in voluntary resolutions between the UC and federal government, so long as the Trump administration follows proper procedures.
Lin also specified that the federal government cannot coerce the University into agreeing with the settlement or similar terms by violating the First or Tenth Amendments when terminating, withholding, freezing or refusing to grant federal funds. This portion of the original order did not specifically cite the amendments.
Lin also removed part of the decision that said the federal government could not enact conditions around federal funding that would violate the First Amendment rights of UC employees.
The DOJ and the White House did not respond in time for comment on the decision to drop the appeal.
A UC Office of the President spokesperson said in an emailed statement that while the University was not a party in the lawsuit that resulted in Lin’s Nov. 14 decision, it is focused on innovation, advancing medicine and supporting the competitiveness of the U.S.
“UC remains committed to protecting the mission, governance, and academic freedom of the University,” the spokesperson said in the statement.
